PDA

View Full Version : Scary Bible Quotes



BAMAPHIN 22
06-29-2007, 06:25 PM
See the link on Bible Quotes:

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/29/scary-bible-quotes/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Eowl233%2Fbiblequotes.htm&frame=true

Joker2thief
06-30-2007, 12:25 AM
too bad that the bible is like a buffet
most people take what looks good and leave the rest

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 12:46 AM
That's actually a good link, at least for those of us that don't know the Bible well. The introduction gives links to various arguments on both sides too. Well, I never had any respect for what's written in that book and thus never studied it, but having even a short list of such quotes from someone who did study it is useful.

DolfinDave
06-30-2007, 01:32 PM
I just don't see how you can claim everything in there is the word of God himself but you can just pick and choose what you want. That is what I did with the whole religion thing. But I don't sit here and claim everything is the unquestioned word of God and I must obey everything to a T. I think the basic message of the bible and organized religions are the thing that counts. All the other crap we could do without.

adamprez2003
06-30-2007, 02:02 PM
Should put too rest that the Koran is somehow more violent than the bible- lol.

Scrap
06-30-2007, 02:28 PM
That's actually a good link, at least for those of us that don't know the Bible well. The introduction gives links to various arguments on both sides too. Well, I never had any respect for what's written in that book and thus never studied it, but having even a short list of such quotes from someone who did study it is useful.Looks like you have all the info you ever wanted to read. You'd think that such an educated man would want to read much more before passing judgment on the Bible. You'd think a scientist would want to research more before deciding what to believe the facts are.


I'm disappointed that you would say that you never had any respect for what is written in a book you've never studied. Maybe I'll go out to WalMart and pick me up one of those science degrees. Is that anywhere near sporting goods ? :rolleyes:

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 02:46 PM
Looks like you have all the info you ever wanted to read. You'd think that such an educated man would want to read much more before passing judgment on the Bible. You'd think a scientist would want to research more before deciding what to believe the facts are.


I'm disappointed that you would say that you never had any respect for what is written in a book you've never studied. Maybe I'll go out to WalMart and pick me up one of those science degrees. Is that anywhere near sporting goods ? :rolleyes:

Where did I imply I have all the info I ever wanted? Please don't make unsupported accusations. It's simply information that's useful.

And if you read what I write carefully, I rarely pass judgment on specific passages in the Bible. I stay away from that most of the time unless I have a quote from someone who believes in the Bible and HE gives me his interpretation.

I attack SPECIFIC beliefs if you cared to note that before attacking me like that. For example, IS it true that person X believes God exists? I can debate that irrespective of whether that belief comes from the Bible or Koran or whatever. But, once that person says it comes from the Bible, then whatever argument I make automatically transfers to an attack on the Bible, at least given his interpretation of it.

So, why do I have no respect for the Bible? Simple. Based on what believers of it have told me, it ASSUMES the existence of something for which NO scientific (demonstrable) evidence exists: God. Do you dispute this? Does the Bible allow for ANY possibility it could be wrong that God exists? Too many people who believe in the book claim there can be NO possibility they (human beings) could EVER be wrong.

Any book that suggests we accept something on faith ALONE is something I have NO respect for.

Scrap
06-30-2007, 04:15 PM
Where did I imply I have all the info I ever wanted? Please don't make unsupported accusations. It's simply information that's useful.

And if you read what I write carefully, I rarely pass judgment on specific passages in the Bible. I stay away from that most of the time unless I have a quote from someone who believes in the Bible and HE gives me his interpretation.

I attack SPECIFIC beliefs if you cared to note that before attacking me like that. For example, IS it true that person X believes God exists? I can debate that irrespective of whether that belief comes from the Bible or Koran or whatever. But, once that person says it comes from the Bible, then whatever argument I make automatically transfers to an attack on the Bible, at least given his interpretation of it.

So, why do I have no respect for the Bible? Simple. Based on what believers of it have told me, it ASSUMES the existence of something for which NO scientific (demonstrable) evidence exists: God. Do you dispute this? Does the Bible allow for ANY possibility it could be wrong that God exists? Too many people who believe in the book claim there can be NO possibility they (human beings) could EVER be wrong.

Any book that suggests we accept something on faith ALONE is something I have NO respect for.Useful for your well studied conclusions ??? :lol:
Pick up the Bible, and read it one time. If you then choose to not believe, at least it will be an educated decision.



Based on what believers of it have told me, it ASSUMES the existence of something for which NO scientific (demonstrable) evidence exists: God. Ever think (just maybe) scientists are not that far along (in the acumen department) at this point to be able to find that evidence ? Ever think that there are just some things that the human mind CAN'T comprehend ? I personally do.


Any book that suggests we accept something on faith ALONE is something I have NO respect for.Well, I'm sure the folks down in hell are excited right now. They've got a scientist coming to town. Finally, someone smart enough to fix the air conditioning. :sidelol: Good luck with that.


How about this ? Instead of scientists trying to disprove Gods existence, how about they finally bring something to the table as to how we exist.

Slappy8800
06-30-2007, 04:20 PM
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

time to kill my boss

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 04:26 PM
Useful for your well studied conclusions ??? :lol:
Pick up the Bible, and read it one time. If you then choose to not believe, at least it will be an educated decision.

Why pick it up and read it if it's universally acknowledged to be true that the Bible ASSUMES the existence of something for which no known scientific evidence exists: God?

If you don't dispute that it assumes the existence of God, I have no reason to pick up such a book. It simply means that the validity of many of the arguments rest on that one assumption (as well as many others: just because God exists doesn't mean he had to have created the universe, so that's another assumption with no evidence, etc..)

And yes, this one assertion IS a well-studied conclusion. Again, do you dispute it?



Ever think (just maybe) scientists are not that far along (in the acumen department) at this point to be able to find that evidence ? Ever think that there are just some things that the human mind CAN'T comprehend ? I personally do.

Ever think that what you stated is SO obvious there's no point in stating it? Really, stating it does what? It changes nothing in what I said.



Well, I'm sure the folks down in hell are excited right now. They've got a scientist coming to town. Finally, someone smart enough to fix the air conditioning. :sidelol: Good luck with that.

Another assumption with no evidence supporting it. No evidence hell exists and no evidence that even if it existed I'd go there. All that's just assumption after assumption. This is so typical of the Bible crowd it gives me further reason to completely disrespect the book.



How about this ? Instead of scientists trying to disprove Gods existence, how about they finally bring something to the table as to how we exist.

How about you learn some science and you won't make such ignorant statements. "How" the universe works (as far as we know) is contained in all those laws and theories science comes up with. Sure, there's lots we don't understand, but first of all science is HONEST about this, instead of just going out and claiming something for which NO scientific evidence exists MUST be correct!!

And you see all that technology around you? That's a direct result of having a better understanding of how we exist (how nature works) than anything religion ever came close to providing. I don't see you complaining about science when it comes to having all the cool stuff that can't be created without it.

Den54
06-30-2007, 04:29 PM
Useful for your well studied conclusions ??? :lol:
Pick up the Bible, and read it one time. If you then choose to not believe, at least it will be an educated decision.


Ever think (just maybe) scientists are not that far along (in the acumen department) at this point to be able to find that evidence ? Ever think that there are just some things that the human mind CAN'T comprehend ? I personally do.
Well, I'm sure the folks down in hell are excited right now. They've got a scientist coming to town. Finally, someone smart enough to fix the air conditioning. :sidelol: Good luck with that.


How about this ? Instead of scientists trying to disprove Gods existence, how about they finally bring something to the table as to how we exist.


You really seem to be on a condecending roll there Scrap.
Is that how the bible has influenced your life?

Scrap
06-30-2007, 05:44 PM
You really seem to be on a condecending roll there Scrap.
Is that how the bible has influenced your life?You mean condescending ? If so, no.
I'm not condescending at all. You'd see it my way too if you were a believer in God. I wouldn't expect you to understand where I'm coming from. This is between me and the science guy. I challenge him (and all scientists) to come up with an answer as to how everything came into existence. Instead of saying "prove God exists", how about they come up with a better reason as to how it all happened ? Of course, since they beg for proof, I will be asking for the same.


You are defending a person who disclaims something he himself admits to knowing nothing about.

DolfinDave
06-30-2007, 05:49 PM
You mean condescending ? If so, no.
I'm not condescending at all. You'd see it my way too if you were a believer in God. I wouldn't expect you to understand where I'm coming from. This is between me and the science guy. I challenge him (and all scientists) to come up with an answer as to how everything came into existence. Instead of saying "prove God exists", how about they come up with a better reason as to how it all happened ? Of course, since they beg for proof, I will be asking for the same.

ckb has said it before, and that is that science is agnostic. It doesn't assume anything about God. Why would it since it has no way to prove whether or not God exists? There is no answer. Its something based on faith, which does not need rationality or evidence.

Den54
06-30-2007, 05:56 PM
You mean condescending ? If so, no.
I'm not condescending at all. You'd see it my way too if you were a believer in God. I wouldn't expect you to understand where I'm coming from. This is between me and the science guy. I challenge him (and all scientists) to come up with an answer as to how everything came into existence. Instead of saying "prove God exists", how about they come up with a better reason as to how it all happened ? Of course, since they beg for proof, I will be asking for the same.


You are defending a person who disclaims something he himself admits to knowing nothing about.

Your post is full of assumptions.

Scrap
06-30-2007, 05:56 PM
ckb has said it before, and that is that science is agnostic. It doesn't assume anything about God. Why would it since it has no way to prove whether or not God exists? There is no answer. Its something based on faith, which does not need rationality or evidence.He flat out said he has no respect for the Bible. Can you not see where this would anger anyone who believes ? Here ya go...Simple question: Does he believe in the existence of a God ? Yes or no ?

Scrap
06-30-2007, 05:57 PM
Your post is full of assumptions.
Couldn't think of anything else huh ? :sidelol:

Den54
06-30-2007, 05:59 PM
He flat out said he has no respect for the Bible. Can you not see where this would anger anyone who believes ? Here ya go...Simple question: Does he believe in the existence of a God ? Yes or no ?


No I can't see. If it angers you perhaps it's because you're not as secure as you thought you were with your beliefs.

Den54
06-30-2007, 06:02 PM
Couldn't think of anything else huh ? :sidelol:

Well you pretty much proved what they say about assumptions.

DolfinDave
06-30-2007, 06:05 PM
He flat out said he has no respect for the Bible. Can you not see where this would anger anyone who believes ? Here ya go...Simple question: Does he believe in the existence of a God ? Yes or no ?

He would probably say no because there is no evidence to suggest so. But I don't want to put words in his mouth.

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 06:14 PM
This is between me and the science guy. I challenge him (and all scientists) to come up with an answer as to how everything came into existence. Instead of saying "prove God exists", how about they come up with a better reason as to how it all happened ? Of course, since they beg for proof, I will be asking for the same.


You are defending a person who disclaims something he himself admits to knowing nothing about.

First of all, unless you are disputing what I claimed is true about the Bible, then I do know something about it. And that something - the assumption God exists is true without any evidence - is sufficient for me not to have any respect for the book. I explained that in my previous post. I'll let you respond to that before continuing.


Now, as far as science showing how everything came into existence, there's actually been some discoveries there. For example, quantum mechanics actually allows for particles to come into and out of existence. Virtual particles are examples of this. So, there does seem to be a mechanism for creating something out of nothing.

More importantly, it is science that is showing us all this stuff about the history of the universe from how old it is to in which order different types of particles emerged to what their properties are.

And try to understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I never asked for proof of God's existence. I asked for EVIDENCE. That means there is SOME test one can apply to make a model that assumes the existence of a God more likely to be true than one that doesn't. And NO such evidence has come forth for the existence of a God. THAT is why science doesn't assume its existence.

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 06:15 PM
He would probably say no because there is no evidence to suggest so. But I don't want to put words in his mouth.

That's exactly correct DolfinDave. I won't assume God exists until a theory that assumes it does is shown to be more accurate than one that doesn't assume its existence. Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

adamprez2003
06-30-2007, 06:32 PM
ckb has said it before, and that is that science is agnostic. It doesn't assume anything about God. Why would it since it has no way to prove whether or not God exists? There is no answer. Its something based on faith, which does not need rationality or evidence.

The belief in God is rational. Its insulting to say that anyone's belief in God is based purely on faith. I guarantee there is not one believer who bases his belief on pure faith. One believes in God becvause he looks out at the world and he sees the hand of a creator and not just random acts of luck as some here would believe. I would argue it's irrational not to believe in a creator. Ever hear the expression "There's no such thing as luck"

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 06:45 PM
The belief in God is rational. Its insulting to say that anyone's belief in God is based purely on faith. I guarantee there is not one believer who bases his belief on pure faith. One believes in God becvause he looks out at the world and he sees the hand of a creator and not just random acts of luck as some here would believe. I would argue it's irrational not to believe in a creator. Ever hear the expression "There's no such thing as luck"

Insulting or not, until any evidence emerges FOR the existence of a God - that means a theory that assumes God exists makes a prediction shown to be accurate that a theory that doesn't assume God exists doesn't accurately predict - it remains an assumption only. And to then claim it is true means you are making an irrational decision - "rational" means what an optimal decision-maker would do, and since the probability of the existence of an omnipotent God is zero and the probability of the existence of ANY God is the same as that for no God, it's irrational to make a decision either way. And this isn't just opinion on my part, it's based on mathematical deduction given the complete lack of evidence for and the complete lack of evidence against the existence of a God.

So, yes that's taken purely on faith.

Finally, quantum mechanics has already shown the universe isn't deterministic. So, "chance" is inherent in nature. It's something relatively counter-intuitive: one can say there is an inherent probability of X existing, not "either X exists or it does not".

So, even if you believe in God, you're forced into accepting Nature is inherently probabilistic as far as we know. Thus "chance" is so to say woven into Nature's fabric.

cnc66
06-30-2007, 06:52 PM
ckb has said it before, and that is that science is agnostic. It doesn't assume anything about God. Why would it since it has no way to prove whether or not God exists? There is no answer. Its something based on faith, which does not need rationality or evidence.

hmmm, didn't ol Albert Einstien proclaim the more he studied science, the greater his beleif in a masters hand... God... he was pretty smart

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 06:55 PM
hmmm, didn't ol Albert Einstien proclaim the more he studied science, the greater his beleif in a masters hand... God... he was pretty smart

First of all, NO scientist ever provided evidence for its existence, and that's what counts. Einstein got a lot of things wrong too you know (in science).

Second of all, Einstein rejected the idea of God as an omnipotent being of some sort, so he rejected the "God" that most religious people refer to. Einstein was referring to an "order" in Nature that became more apparent to him.

And his greatest scientific blunder was in arguing against Quantum Mechanics, often using this "intuition" of there must be some sort of order (deterministic order) underlying Quantum Mechanics.

Well, Bell's Theorem put an end to that, showing QM can't have hidden variables that could make the same predictions.

adamprez2003
06-30-2007, 07:36 PM
Insulting or not, until any evidence emerges FOR the existence of a God - that means a theory that assumes God exists makes a prediction shown to be accurate that a theory that doesn't assume God exists doesn't accurately predict - it remains an assumption only. And to then claim it is true means you are making an irrational decision - "rational" means what an optimal decision-maker would do, and since the probability of the existence of an omnipotent God is zero and the probability of the existence of ANY God is the same as that for no God, it's irrational to make a decision either way. And this isn't just opinion on my part, it's based on mathematical deduction given the complete lack of evidence for and the complete lack of evidence against the existence of a God.

So, yes that's taken purely on faith.

Finally, quantum mechanics has already shown the universe isn't deterministic. So, "chance" is inherent in nature. It's something relatively counter-intuitive: one can say there is an inherent probability of X existing, not "either X exists or it does not".

So, even if you believe in God, you're forced into accepting Nature is inherently probabilistic as far as we know. Thus "chance" is so to say woven into Nature's fabric.

Existence of proof of God is everywhere for the rational being. I would argue that if you can't see it then you are somewhat handicapped. That's ok, you can't help it. Clearly anyone who can't decipher reality unless he can doublecheck it with a mathematical formula needs our understanding and compassion. Mathametics is possibly the most ridiculous way of looking at the universe. There is zero illumination in it. It would be like looking at Zach Thomas measuring his height weight and speed and determining that he's going to be a bust because his measureables dont add up. You fail to grasp the luminous, try not be so bitter against those who do

I don't know why you feel that quantam mechanics disproves God

As for the universe or nature all science does is break down both and then try to replicvate it. It does not and never will explain it.

And no, science has not proven that the universe isn't deterministic, though that has nothing to do with God. If you're going to play the part of science spokesman at least get it right. It is merely a theory

The only thing science has proven is how little we know

Scrap
06-30-2007, 07:59 PM
First of all, unless you are disputing what I claimed is true about the Bible, then I do know something about it. And that something - the assumption God exists is true without any evidence - is sufficient for me not to have any respect for the book. I explained that in my previous post. I'll let you respond to that before continuing.


Now, as far as science showing how everything came into existence, there's actually been some discoveries there. For example, quantum mechanics actually allows for particles to come into and out of existence. Virtual particles are examples of this. So, there does seem to be a mechanism for creating something out of nothing.

More importantly, it is science that is showing us all this stuff about the history of the universe from how old it is to in which order different types of particles emerged to what their properties are.

And try to understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I never asked for proof of God's existence. I asked for EVIDENCE. That means there is SOME test one can apply to make a model that assumes the existence of a God more likely to be true than one that doesn't. And NO such evidence has come forth for the existence of a God. THAT is why science doesn't assume its existence.
Jesus was evidence enough.

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 08:01 PM
Existence of proof of God is everywhere for the rational being. I would argue that if you can't see it then you are somewhat handicapped. That's ok, you can't help it. Clearly anyone who can't decipher reality unless he can doublecheck it with a mathematical formula needs our understanding and compassion. Mathametics is possibly the most ridiculous way of looking at the universe. There is zero illumination in it. It would be like looking at Zach Thomas measuring his height weight and speed and determining that he's going to be a bust because his measureables dont add up. You fail to grasp the luminous, try not be so bitter against those who do

See, this is yet another assumption with no evidence. How would you know evidence for the existence of God is everywhere for a rational being? You're not rational (you proved that with statements you've made that are simply false in the other thread), so how could you know?




I don't know why you feel that quantam mechanics disproves God

Here's another example of lack of rationality on your part. NEVER did I imply quantum mechanics disproves God, but you apparently think I did, even when (in the other thread) I repeatedly told you I never excluded the possibility God exists and science can't do so either. In fact, in the exact quote above, I say:

QUOTE:
"given the complete lack of evidence for and the complete lack of evidence against the existence of a God."
-----------

Either you can't read or you can read but not comprehend. Either way, it's not rational to assume "complete lack of evidence agianst the existence of a God" implies quantum mechanics disproves God.

Again, more illogical arguments I have to respond to.



As for the universe or nature all science does is break down both and then try to replicvate it. It does not and never will explain it.

?? Seriously, do you believe your own arguments??

Why does water in the northern hemisphere drain out of a sink in a counter-clockwise direction whereas water in the southern hemisphere drain out in a clockwise direction?

Let's see, if I show you the calculations (the coriolis effect makes this happen) and show you why that is what would be expected (instead of no difference or the other way around), what do you exactly call that?

It's NOT an explanation in your mind eh? Well, that doesn't matter, because the rest of us that use this language consider the deduction from basic laws of physics (you only need Newtonian physics here) showing why that and not another possibility occurs to BE an explanation!!

It's hard to take someone seriously that claims science doesn't explain natural phenomena :rolleyes:

Scrap
06-30-2007, 08:01 PM
The belief in God is rational. Its insulting to say that anyone's belief in God is based purely on faith. I guarantee there is not one believer who bases his belief on pure faith. One believes in God becvause he looks out at the world and he sees the hand of a creator and not just random acts of luck as some here would believe. I would argue it's irrational not to believe in a creator. Ever hear the expression "There's no such thing as luck"Yes

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 08:03 PM
Jesus was evidence enough.

There's no way to deduce the existence of God from the existence of Jesus. If you can do that without making the assumption God exists, you'd be the world's most preeminent scientist.

adamprez2003
06-30-2007, 08:13 PM
See, this is yet another assumption with no evidence. How would you know evidence for the existence of God is everywhere for a rational being? You're not rational (you proved that with statements you've made that are simply false in the other thread), so how could you know?




Here's another example of lack of rationality on your part. NEVER did I imply quantum mechanics disproves God, but you apparently think I did, even when (in the other thread) I repeatedly told you I never excluded the possibility God exists and science can't do so either. In fact, in the exact quote above, I say:

QUOTE:
"given the complete lack of evidence for and the complete lack of evidence against the existence of a God."
-----------

Either you can't read or you can read but not comprehend. Either way, it's not rational to assume "complete lack of evidence agianst the existence of a God" implies quantum mechanics disproves God.

Again, more illogical arguments I have to respond to.



?? Seriously, do you believe your own arguments??

Why does water in the northern hemisphere drain out of a sink in a counter-clockwise direction whereas water in the southern hemisphere drain out in a clockwise direction?

Let's see, if I show you the calculations (the coriolis effect makes this happen) and show you why that is what would be expected (instead of no difference or the other way around), what do you exactly call that?

It's NOT an explanation in your mind eh? Well, that doesn't matter, because the rest of us that use this language consider the deduction from basic laws of physics (you only need Newtonian physics here) showing why that and not another possibility occurs to BE an explanation!!

It's hard to take someone seriously that claims science doesn't explain natural phenomena :rolleyes:

So in other words you feel compelled to scream out "there is no proof of God" every time someone says they believe in God. Why would you waste your time that way? Why can't you just accept the fact that God has not revealed himself to you and move on with your mathematical fetish. Contemplate dark matter or chaos theory or something.

It's pretty obvious you have a deep hatred for those that believe in God although I'm sure you disagree. Perhaps if I put it in a mathematical formula 1+1= 2:evil:

ckb2001
06-30-2007, 08:20 PM
So in other words you feel compelled to scream out "there is no proof of God" every time someone says they believe in God. Why would you waste your time that way? Why can't you just accept the fact that God has not revealed himself to you and move on with your mathematical fetish. Contemplate dark matter or chaos theory or something.

It's pretty obvious you have a deep hatred for those that believe in God although I'm sure you disagree. Perhaps if I put it in a mathematical formula 1+1= 2:evil:

First of all, I asked for evidence, not proof. Second of all, the hatred is for the willingness to accept something on faith alone! There is no hatred for the individuals that believe in God. I make a distinction between ideas and people. Of course, if those people (or others) attempt to limit scientific discovery (some do, for example with embryonic stem cell research, whereas some don't), then it's a problem with the people.

Finally, I have no problem saying there's no evidence for God, either because it doesn't exist, because nature is built in such a way that makes us unable to answer the question, or because it does exist and it hasn't revealed itself.

If that's the only thing believers in God were asking for, you'd find no objection from practically all scientists. But, that's NOT what they (and you) are saying. They claim it's not even possible they could be wrong about this!! That kind of thinking needs to be checked. And they claim many falsehoods about science, either deliberately or not. That has to be corrected.

Hence my responses.

adamprez2003
06-30-2007, 08:32 PM
First of all, I asked for evidence, not proof. Second of all, the hatred is for the willingness to accept something on faith alone! There is no hatred for the individuals that believe in God. I make a distinction between ideas and people. Of course, if those people (or others) attempt to limit scientific discovery (some do, for example with embryonic stem cell research, whereas some don't), then it's a problem with the people.

Finally, I have no problem saying there's no evidence for God, either because it doesn't exist, because nature is built in such a way that makes us unable to answer the question, or because it does exist and it hasn't revealed itself.

If that's the only thing believers in God were asking for, you'd find no objection from practically all scientists. But, that's NOT what they (and you) are saying. They claim it's not even possible they could be wrong about this!! That kind of thinking needs to be checked. And they claim many falsehoods about science, either deliberately or not. That has to be corrected.

Hence my responses.

Well said. I agree with everything you just said and after reading your last post on the other thread I take back my comment that you have hatred for those that subscribe to a creator. As for me, I actually have great respect and hope for science. I feel it is necessary for our understanding and unraveling of the universe's mysteries. I was merely defnding religion against a perceived attack as I would do for science if I felt it was being attacked unfairly. I believe in leaving religion to the religous, science to scientists and philosophy to the philosophers. They all have their place in the human story

Pagan
07-01-2007, 10:16 AM
Jesus was evidence enough.
And you met him and personally witnessed that he was the "son of god"....um....when?

muscle979
07-01-2007, 10:56 AM
Are these quotes all really in the Bible? Kind of ironic if they are, being that a lot of Christians love to blast Islam these days for being violent. I got this chain email from my mother in law the other day accusing Barack Obama of being a Wahabi. It was the most hateful, ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time.

Scrap
07-01-2007, 01:39 PM
And you met him and personally witnessed that he was the "son of god"....um....when?:rolleyes:

Den54
07-01-2007, 06:00 PM
:rolleyes:

Best you could come up with huh.:lol:

Pagan
07-01-2007, 06:20 PM
Best you could come up with huh.:lol:
Did you expect anything else? Like proof or facts or anything?

C'mon now Den, you've been reading these forums long enough to know that the God Squad makes these outlandish claims that they know are true all the time, and never back them up with anything! :lol:

Hell...(no pun intended) I've been going to hell for years now according to them! They're SURE of it! :tongue:

BAMAPHIN 22
07-01-2007, 06:30 PM
First of all, I asked for evidence, not proof. Second of all, the hatred is for the willingness to accept something on faith alone! There is no hatred for the individuals that believe in God. I make a distinction between ideas and people. Of course, if those people (or others) attempt to limit scientific discovery (some do, for example with embryonic stem cell research, whereas some don't), then it's a problem with the people.

Finally, I have no problem saying there's no evidence for God, either because it doesn't exist, because nature is built in such a way that makes us unable to answer the question, or because it does exist and it hasn't revealed itself.

If that's the only thing believers in God were asking for, you'd find no objection from practically all scientists. But, that's NOT what they (and you) are saying. They claim it's not even possible they could be wrong about this!! That kind of thinking needs to be checked. And they claim many falsehoods about science, either deliberately or not. That has to be corrected.

Hence my responses.


Proof That God Doesn't Exist (http://religion.netscape.com/story/2007/06/30/proof-that-god-doesnt-exist)

Blind belief is not a win-win situation, it is intellectually dishonest and harmful. Believers have condemned millions of people to hell in thoughts and words, not to mention belief the Jews are guilty of killing…

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/30/proof-that-god-doesnt-exist/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthbeknown.com%2Fproof.htm&frame=true

DonShula84
07-01-2007, 07:46 PM
It always makes me wonder why a person gets so mad and cares so much about


If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

And why ignore the second part of the quote? If the Bible is to be taken literally shouldnt you be out killing gay people and not just voting against their evil agenda of equality?

But doesnt care and ignores


Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Or any of the other ridiculousness that can be found in that link. How do people decide what to believe in and what to ignore when it all comes from the same book?

DonShula84
07-01-2007, 07:52 PM
Proof That God Doesn't Exist (http://religion.netscape.com/story/2007/06/30/proof-that-god-doesnt-exist)

Blind belief is not a win-win situation, it is intellectually dishonest and harmful. Believers have condemned millions of people to hell in thoughts and words, not to mention belief the Jews are guilty of killing…

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/30/proof-that-god-doesnt-exist/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthbeknown.com%2Fproof.htm&frame=true

Interesting link.

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 08:03 PM
Proof That God Doesn't Exist (http://religion.netscape.com/story/2007/06/30/proof-that-god-doesnt-exist)

Blind belief is not a win-win situation, it is intellectually dishonest and harmful. Believers have condemned millions of people to hell in thoughts and words, not to mention belief the Jews are guilty of killing…

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/30/proof-that-god-doesnt-exist/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthbeknown.com%2Fproof.htm&frame=true

Well, that's just bull. Referring to this quote:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/30/proof-that-god-doesnt-exist/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthbeknown.com%2Fproof.htm&frame=true

"On the first page of this website is a prayer: "God, protect me from your followers." Well, needless to say, it doesn't work, thereby providing concrete proof that God doesn't exist and that prayer doesn't work."
-----------------------

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that because a prayer isn't answered therefore an omnipotent being can't exist. I mean if the person making that claim really can't understand that, then it's not dishonesty but stupidity.

Of course, the author's generally right that prayer may only have a small effect if any, but that's a separate question.

There's no proof God exists and no proof it doesn't. However, NO scientific theory includes the assumption God exists because it only increases the uncertainty in the theory (you lump all uncertainties in the "God" variable, but you suddenly have new questions you didn't have before relating to the properties of this "God", such as what it wants).

So, science is in principle agnostic, but in practice atheist. But no one has found actual evidence against the existence of an omnipotent God.

adamprez2003
07-01-2007, 08:38 PM
So, science is in principle agnostic, but in practice atheist.

That's a great way to put it.

ABrownLamp
07-01-2007, 08:40 PM
Well, that's just bull. Referring to this quote:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/30/proof-that-god-doesnt-exist/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthbeknown.com%2Fproof.htm&frame=true

"On the first page of this website is a prayer: "God, protect me from your followers." Well, needless to say, it doesn't work, thereby providing concrete proof that God doesn't exist and that prayer doesn't work."
-----------------------

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that because a prayer isn't answered therefore an omnipotent being can't exist. I mean if the person making that claim really can't understand that, then it's not dishonesty but stupidity.

Of course, the author's generally right that prayer may only have a small effect if any, but that's a separate question.

There's no proof God exists and no proof it doesn't. However, NO scientific theory includes the assumption God exists because it only increases the uncertainty in the theory (you lump all uncertainties in the "God" variable, but you suddenly have new questions you didn't have before relating to the properties of this "God", such as what it wants).

So, science is in principle agnostic, but in practice atheist. But no one has found actual evidence against the existence of an omnipotent God.

Well it certainly adds credibility to the fact that a Christian God doesnt exist. I mean if prayer is a very important element regarding the power of an omnipotent and benevolent Christian God, and statistically prayer has a predictability rate of next to zero (and when there are clear examples of it being precisely zero such as regeneration of amputee limbs) then either God is not benevolent or he is not omnipotent or Christianity is at least partially incorrect. It's at least evidence that a Christian God does not exist.

Den54
07-01-2007, 08:43 PM
Did you expect anything else? Like proof or facts or anything?

C'mon now Den, you've been reading these forums long enough to know that the God Squad makes these outlandish claims that they know are true all the time, and never back them up with anything! :lol:

Hell...(no pun intended) I've been going to hell for years now according to them! They're SURE of it! :tongue:


Exactly. If there was proof then there would be no need for faith.

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 08:49 PM
Well it certainly adds credibility to the fact that a Christian God doesnt exist. I mean if prayer is a very important element regarding the power of an omnipotent and benevolent Christian God, and statistically prayer has a predictability rate of next to zero (and when there are clear examples of it being precisely zero such as regeneration of amputee limbs) then either God is not benevolent or he is not omnipotent or Christianity is at least partially incorrect. It's at least evidence that a Christian God does not exist.

Well, I really can't comment too much there, since there are Christians here that have used the one escape route they do have through selective interpretation of the Bible.

So, some Christians would assume God does things that can already be disproven by science (age of the Earth for some Creationists), but others are more careful and find some interpretation of the Bible that allows for consistency with data science gathers.

So, it really depends on which Christian you're talking about. Of course, I'm just talking about the idea of an omnipotent God with no other assumptions attached.

adamprez2003
07-01-2007, 09:13 PM
if prayer is a very important element regarding the power of an omnipotent and benevolent Christian God,

How could a God who is omnipotent need prayer to validate his omnipotence? And since when is the Christian God, benevolent? Hentends to be a pretty strict and stern kind of God. The blood flows pretty freely in the bible. There are many stories in the bible that tend to be pretty harsh. God is simply God in the bible and prayer is simply man's way of trying to communicate with him. Think of it as a sort of meditation to try to put you in touch with the spiritual, although some would say it may also be a way of trying to shape your destiny. Somewhat akin to modern psychological beliefs about the power of positive thinking.

One could also say that it is a form of submission to the divine also

As regarding the regeneration of amputee limbs I doubt any Christian actually prays for that.

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 09:33 PM
How could a God who is omnipotent need prayer to validate his omnipotence? And since when is the Christian God, benevolent? Hentends to be a pretty strict and stern kind of God. The blood flows pretty freely in the bible. There are many stories in the bible that tend to be pretty harsh. God is simply God in the bible and prayer is simply man's way of trying to communicate with him. Think of it as a sort of meditation to try to put you in touch with the spiritual, although some would say it may also be a way of trying to shape your destiny. Somewhat akin to modern psychological beliefs about the power of positive thinking.

One could also say that it is a form of submission to the divine also

As regarding the regeneration of amputee limbs I doubt any Christian actually prays for that.

Be careful with this though. That's your interpretation of the Bible you're putting forth. ABrownLamp's argument has merit for CERTAIN classes of Christians (not even sure if it's a majority), but many Christians think the Earth is only thousands of years old where others say that's not the proper interpretation of what's written in the Bible.

Similar here. You WILL find Christians that think a benevolent God is an INTEGRAL part of their belief system, etc..

So, it depends on the person's interpretation of the Bible (or any other religious text).


And to your first sentence, remember what Bohr said to Einstein when Einstein quipped "God doesn't play dice" (in an argument against quantum mechanics, which he lost). Bohr replied "Don't tell God what to do".

So, who knows whether God would need prayer to validate his omnipotence or not? (all assuming God exists in the first place).

ABrownLamp
07-01-2007, 09:41 PM
How could a God who is omnipotent need prayer to validate his omnipotence? And since when is the Christian God, benevolent? Hentends to be a pretty strict and stern kind of God. The blood flows pretty freely in the bible. There are many stories in the bible that tend to be pretty harsh. God is simply God in the bible and prayer is simply man's way of trying to communicate with him. Think of it as a sort of meditation to try to put you in touch with the spiritual, although some would say it may also be a way of trying to shape your destiny. Somewhat akin to modern psychological beliefs about the power of positive thinking.

One could also say that it is a form of submission to the divine also

As regarding the regeneration of amputee limbs I doubt any Christian actually prays for that.

Questioning omnipotence was not what I was getting at. I was debating the concept of a Christian God. So either God does not answer prayers or he is not capable of doing so. Or he is not benevolent. Either way, prayer seems to be a highly ineffective tool for anything.

And which God you are referring to really depends on which testament we are talking about.

I really find it hard to believe that a Christian amputee would not pray to have his limbs back. And even if they dont theres a 100% chance that if they did, and the rest of the world prayed with him that he would still be an amputee.

adamprez2003
07-01-2007, 10:07 PM
Be careful with this though. That's your interpretation of the Bible you're putting forth. ABrownLamp's argument has merit for CERTAIN classes of Christians (not even sure if it's a majority), but many Christians think the Earth is only thousands of years old where others say that's not the proper interpretation of what's written in the Bible.

Similar here. You WILL find Christians that think a benevolent God is an INTEGRAL part of their belief system, etc..

So, it depends on the person's interpretation of the Bible (or any other religious text).


And to your first sentence, remember what Bohr said to Einstein when Einstein quipped "God doesn't play dice" (in an argument against quantum mechanics, which he lost). Bohr replied "Don't tell God what to do".

So, who knows whether God would need prayer to validate his omnipotence or not? (all assuming God exists in the first place).

Good points, though I don't see how a God (theoritically speaking of course) could be compelled to respond to a prayer to prove his existence. If someone calls me on the phone and I dont call him back do I cease to exist?

Scrap
07-01-2007, 10:12 PM
Best you could come up with huh.:lol:No. I was just thinking when I read that, that this thread is like two guys getting ready to battle it out, and Pagan was like one of the guy's little sister trying to fight for her big bro. It was laughable at best,but just annoying for the most part :) . Shoo fly. Shoo.

adamprez2003
07-01-2007, 10:12 PM
Questioning omnipotence was not what I was getting at. I was debating the concept of a Christian God. So either God does not answer prayers or he is not capable of doing so. Or he is not benevolent. Either way, prayer seems to be a highly ineffective tool for anything.

And which God you are referring to really depends on which testament we are talking about.

I really find it hard to believe that a Christian amputee would not pray to have his limbs back. And even if they dont theres a 100% chance that if they did, and the rest of the world prayed with him that he would still be an amputee.

I think the best source material would be to ask someone who prays. Of course you would have to accept their answers on the subject or at least give them a fair hearing. Unfortunately most of my prayers are when I'm trying to draw to an inside straight on the river. From my experience God is not very benevolent when it comes to answering a poker players prayers:D

Scrap
07-01-2007, 10:24 PM
It always makes me wonder why a person gets so mad and cares so much about



And why ignore the second part of the quote? If the Bible is to be taken literally shouldnt you be out killing gay people and not just voting against their evil agenda of equality?

But doesnt care and ignores



Or any of the other ridiculousness that can be found in that link. How do people decide what to believe in and what to ignore when it all comes from the same book? Nobody should kill. IMO, God will handle each person based on his or her life.

Scrap
07-01-2007, 10:26 PM
Good points, though I don't see how a God (theoritically speaking of course) could be compelled to respond to a prayer to prove his existence. If someone calls me on the phone and I dont call him back do I cease to exist?



Why would God need to prove his existence ?

adamprez2003
07-01-2007, 10:27 PM
Why would God need to prove his existence ? Exactly. He is existence

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 10:32 PM
Why would God need to prove his existence ?

So you know God's mind, even if we assume he exists?? How would you know what God thinks he needs to do or not? Maybe he feels like he needs to prove his existence, but he hasn't done so yet (all assuming he exists).

Again, all these assertions are just assumptions added upon more assumptions.

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 10:34 PM
Exactly. He is existence

Well, if the "is" means "equals" (which it technically does), then everything that exists is God, including me. That's absurd though, so obviously God is not existence.

Scrap
07-01-2007, 11:06 PM
Let me break down my standpoint a bit. Kind of a rant (Forgive me.Just thoughts as they come.), but here we go....


With the Bible, I believe it is our duty to read it, and interpret it for ourselves. I have read all of the New Testament, quite a bit of the Old Testament, many quotes by Gandhi, and books by the Dalhi Llama.(<<<spelling could be wrong there) I believe in God. I am a Christian. Many "Christians" don't like the idea of reading anything else other than the Bible, but honestly, I believe reading the other stuff has helped me to understand the Bible much better. One thing that irritates me is a Christian who has never read the Bible. I believe that it's a waste of time to ask for forgiveness for something you know in your heart that you will be doing again soon. (Something many Christians are guilty of doing.) I believe God knows what you feel, and knows you would be lying in that situation. I believe that since man wrote the Bible with his own hand, that some of what is written may not be God's will, but instead what that man wanted. I believe that "knowing God" or "knowing Jesus" is not about reciting verses constantly (as some do), but instead about acting in a way that you feel Jesus/God would act. I believe that many people who will never open a Bible, will still make it to heaven. I believe that there is MUCH about life, and our existence that is not explained in the Bible, and that it will be revealed to us when we die. I believe that Jesus was the son of God, but the Bible also says that we are all God's children. I believe that some of what was written in the Old Testament is a bit exaggerated, and tall tale-ish due to the way a man perceived what happened before he wrote it. I believe that we should look for the message instead of harping on the validity of every story. With that in mind, I also believe that many Christians dig way too deep in a verse for some secret message that is not there to be found. I don't believe I need to physically see it to believe it. I believe most every religion is good in some way, yet there are those that distort that particular religion to fit their agenda, and the end result is that it nullifies the validity of the religion to any "outsiders".

That's what I can think of (off of the top of my head). Have at it. I'm going to bed now.

Scrap
07-01-2007, 11:07 PM
So you know God's mind, even if we assume he exists?? How would you know what God thinks he needs to do or not? Maybe he feels like he needs to prove his existence, but he hasn't done so yet (all assuming he exists).

Again, all these assertions are just assumptions added upon more assumptions.
If God wanted to prove his existence, and he created all of our existence, he would, and you would know it.

Scrap
07-01-2007, 11:12 PM
Well, if the "is" means "equals" (which it technically does), then everything that exists is God, including me. That's absurd though, so obviously God is not existence.
I could be wrong, but I think he meant "is the reason for all existence". I don't think "is existence" would be accurate. If so, then existence would include Hilter, etc...



Okay, really to bed now.

Scrap
07-01-2007, 11:14 PM
One more thing. I keep on referring to God as he, but I don't believe we can put a sex to God. So I'm wrong when I do that. Logging of in 3, 2, .....:D

Pagan
07-01-2007, 11:16 PM
No. I was just thinking when I read that, that this thread is like two guys getting ready to battle it out, and Pagan was like one of the guy's little sister trying to fight for her big bro. It was laughable at best,but just annoying for the most part :) . Shoo fly. Shoo.
Ah I see how you operate now Scrap. You follow up a no reply to my question by STILL not addressing the question asked and then trying to insult me by calling me a girl! Bravo! And you call what I asked of you laughable!? :sidelol:

I ask you a simple question, and all you can respond with is a rolleyes smilie and an insult. You are a full fledged member of the God Squad now! :lol:

Oh and by the way, if you think I'm just a "fly" in this debate to be shooed...as Rob Halford once sang, "You've got another thing comin'". :wink:

PS - I will give credit where credit is due though...at least you say "I believe" and don't make everything you say out to be fact.....yet...

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 11:22 PM
If God wanted to prove his existence, and he created all of our existence, he would, and you would know it.

Aren't there many religious people who claim they KNOW God exists? Who says God "needing" to prove his existence means he feels the need to prove it to everyone? Conversely, who's to say he won't prove his existence in the future to others?

Either way, you have no way of knowing what God wants even IF he exists. Saying what God wants is in the Bible is also an assumption.

Really, everything you stated about what God can do in the post above (where you explain what you believe in) is just assumption piled upon assumption. And it's no different with claiming God doesn't feel the need to prove his existence to anyone.

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 11:25 PM
I could be wrong, but I think he meant "is the reason for all existence". I don't think "is existence" would be accurate. If so, then existence would include Hilter, etc...


Yeah, if that's what he meant, then of course I'll answer it's just an assumption, but you guys know that by now :wink:

Scrap
07-01-2007, 11:27 PM
Ah I see how you operate now Scrap. You follow up a no reply to my question by trying to insult me by calling me a girl! Bravo! And you call what I asked of you laughable!? :sidelol:

I ask you a simple question, and all you can respond with is a rolleyes smilie and an insult.

Your debating skills leave much to be desired. Oh and by the way, if you think I'm just a "fly" in this debate to be shooed, as Rob Halford once sang, "You've got another thing comin'". :wink:

PS - I will give credit where credit is due though...at least you say "I believe" and don't make everything you say out to be fact.....yet...


End of it all, I could care less what you or anyone else believes, or perceives of me or of my beliefs. I feel that strongly about my beliefs that I don't need you or anyone else to validate them. So yes...the manner in which you chimed in seemed like a fly to me. Don't get offended. Be like me, and don't care what anyone thinks. I've seen your posts on here, and overall I like you. I just don't believe what you believe.


I believe that my beliefs are fact. (There, you got it. :wink: ) If I didn't believe they were fact, I couldn't really be believing. Could I ?

Scrap
07-01-2007, 11:31 PM
Aren't there many religious people who claim they KNOW God exists? Who says God "needing" to prove his existence means he feels the need to prove it to everyone? Conversely, who's to say he won't prove his existence in the future to others?

Either way, you have no way of knowing what God wants even IF he exists. Saying what God wants is in the Bible is also an assumption.

Really, everything you stated about what God can do in the post above (where you explain what you believe in) is just assumption piled upon assumption. And it's no different with claiming God doesn't feel the need to prove his existence to anyone. Really, everything in this world, even those things with "proof" could just be called assumptions. How many times have there been studies (related to almost anything) that prove past studies to be inaccurate ? Quite often. Science in itself is even an inexact science.

adamprez2003
07-01-2007, 11:34 PM
Well, if the "is" means "equals" (which it technically does), then everything that exists is God, including me. That's absurd though, so obviously God is not existence.

I believe the universe is basically energy that takes on different forms. I believe that that energy is conscious. Sort of the electrical impulses that flow through a universal brain. I believe that there are two states in the universe. Being (energy) and void (absence of matter or energy). I believe God is the energy that fills the void. The planets, the stars, the creatures all make up a part of him and he them. I therefore believe that he is existence. But then I cant prove that he is consciousness I merely suspect him to be

adamprez2003
07-01-2007, 11:43 PM
I could be wrong, but I think he meant "is the reason for all existence". I don't think "is existence" would be accurate. If so, then existence would include Hilter, etc...



Okay, really to bed now.

Thanks for coming to my aide there but I did mean existence. Hitler is a part of God just as Lucifer is just as Jesus is just as Buddha is. I dont think we are seperate from God. I think we are a part of him

Stitches
07-01-2007, 11:50 PM
Thanks for coming to my aide there but I did mean existence. Hitler is a part of God just as Lucifer is just as Jesus is just as Buddha is. I dont think we are seperate from God. I think we are a part of him

I thought it said god(referring to the biblical version) made us in his own image(or something like that), so assuming he did exist, I would think we were a part of him on some level(and vice versa).

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 11:52 PM
Really, everything in this world, even those things with "proof" could just be called assumptions. How many times have there been studies (related to almost anything) that prove past studies to be inaccurate ? Quite often. Science in itself is even an inexact science.

??

That's a gross misrepresentation of science. Maybe it comes from a gross misunderstanding of it.

I've stated this before, but the key distinction between science and other doctrines of thought is that science requires the ability to test a claim.

It's when you can't test it at all that you have the types of claims you've been providing. For example, I could assume different "laws" of gravitation, use otherwise the same mathematics that assumes each such law is valid, and arrive at different testable predictions.

For example, instead of the strength of the gravitational force (according to Newton) being G*m1*m2/(d^2), where m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects, d is the distance between them and G is a particular constant, you could make it G*(m1^2)*m2/d or so. Each such different formula can be considered a different assumption as you say.

But, it is TESTABLE and you can quantify how accurate it is!!

Every one of your assumptions remains an assumption with NO evidence for it!! None of them (the ones about God) are testable nor can we determine how accurate they are.

So if you wish, that's the distinction I've been making (didn't lay it all out in the last few posts since I did that in previous posts already).

ckb2001
07-01-2007, 11:59 PM
I believe the universe is basically energy that takes on different forms. I believe that that energy is conscious. Sort of the electrical impulses that flow through a universal brain. I believe that there are two states in the universe. Being (energy) and void (absence of matter or energy). I believe God is the energy that fills the void. The planets, the stars, the creatures all make up a part of him and he them. I therefore believe that he is existence. But then I cant prove that he is consciousness I merely suspect him to be

Everything is just a different form of energy, so that's something science will back you up on.

But, you can show people lose conscious awareness of different things when you damage the functions different neural circuits have. No, we can't measure consciousness, but we can observe when an individual is not aware of certain information.

So, if you lesion one part of the brain, you see a predictable lack of awareness of certain types of information. Thus, whatever consciousness is, it seems to require physical circuits that process information in some way.

Something that doesn't process information thus is highly unlikely to be conscious. No, one can't prove that, but your belief is far less plausible than one that suggests consciousness emerges only when physical information-processing mechanisms exist.


And we can already show your claim of there being two states (only) in the universe of "being" and "not being" is almost certainly wrong. Quantum mechanics changed that 3/4 of a century ago. Now, a particle has an inherent probability of existing, not "either it exists or not".

So, that belief just doesn't fit with what we know (already) today about the nature of subatomic particles.



Finally, if you are going to claim that everything that exists IS God, then you have no justification for using a different label than one we already use: Nature.

What you are speaking of is Nature, not God, even IF it has consciousness.

God by definition has to be distinct from Nature (as a set). Your concept isn't as far as I can see.

Dolphin39
07-02-2007, 12:23 AM
Matthew 7:13 (King James Version)

King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=9) (KJV)


7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

As are all the verses, this verse is true. It's so sad; we see and hear it's truth every single day in conversations we have with others.

But it is also a verse of joy...to those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

It comes as NO surprise, Christians on this forum are the minority. God said it would be this way. His word is always true.

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 12:27 AM
Matthew 7:13 (King James Version)

King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=9) (KJV)


7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

As are all the verses, this verse is true. It's so sad; we see and hear it's truth every single day in conversations we have with others.

But it is also a verse of joy...to those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

It comes as NO surprise, Christians on this forum are the minority. God' said it would be this way. His word is always true.



OK, let's actually talk about the original subject of this thread.

Take the first quote from the Bible that link has (assuming it's not lying it's a quote):
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/29/scary-bible-quotes/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Eowl233%2Fbiblequotes.htm&frame=true

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
------------------


So, you just got through saying God's word is always true, and if I'm not mistaken, you have stated before you think the Bible IS God's word?

So, does this mean you accept those quotes (and all the others in that link) as gospel?

You think anyone that curses his mother or father should be put to death for example? Or is there something being misrepresented here in your mind?

DonShula84
07-02-2007, 12:31 AM
OK, let's actually talk about the original subject of this thread.

Take the first quote from the Bible that link has (assuming it's not lying it's a quote):
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/29/scary-bible-quotes/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Eowl233%2Fbiblequotes.htm&frame=true

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
------------------


So, you just got through saying God's word is always true, and if I'm not mistaken, you have stated before you think the Bible IS God's word?

So, does this mean you accept those quotes (and all the others in that link) as gospel?

You think anyone that curses his mother or father should be put to death for example? Or is there something being misrepresented here in your mind?


Beat me to it though for some reason I feel like the answer will be a dodge if you get one at all.

Dolphin39
07-02-2007, 12:37 AM
Jesus came and died for all. We no longer live following the laws of the Old Testament. We now live according to God's gift, Jesus Christ. BTW, Jesus' cruxifiction is outlined in the New Testament.

It will take time for you to understand, more time than we have exchanging here on the forum. My advice is to go to a Bible believing church. I would suggest you go to a good Southern Baptist Church and spend time in fellowship with them. There you will learn a better understanding of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Bible in general.

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 12:43 AM
Jesus came and died for all. We no longer live following the laws of the Old Testament. We now live according to God's gift, Jesus Christ. BTW, Jesus' cruxifiction is outlined in the New Testament.

It will take time for you to understand, more time than we have exchanging here on the forum. My advice is to go to a Bible believing church. I would suggest you go to a good Southern Baptist Church and spend time in fellowship with them. There you will learn a better understanding of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Bible in general.

DonShula84 is right, you didn't answer the question.

Again, this is what you said:

QUOTE:
"As are all the verses, this verse is true."
"God' said it would be this way. His word is always true."
-------------------


Well, I pointed out a verse in the Bible that you claim is true, SINCE it's a verse from the Bible (word of God) and you said ALL verses are true.

So, here's the verse again:

QUOTE:
"Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death."
--------------------

According to what you said you believe this verse to be true. So, you do think anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. At least if we go by logic, that's what you believe.

Please, tell us what you think should happen to a person if he or she curses his father or mother. If you don't like what the Bible says or how we're interpreting it, show us how to interpret that one verse.

If you don't, I can only use prior statements of yours to deduce what you believe in this specific case.

Dolphin39
07-02-2007, 12:46 AM
DonShula84 is right, you didn't answer the question.

Again, this is what you said:

QUOTE:
"As are all the verses, this verse is true."
"God' said it would be this way. His word is always true."
-------------------


Well, I pointed out a verse in the Bible that you claim is true, SINCE it's a verse from the Bible (word of God) and you said ALL verses are true.

So, here's the verse again:

QUOTE:
"Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death."
--------------------

According to what you said you believe this verse to be true. So, you do think anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. At least if we go by logic, that's what you believe.

Please, tell us what you think should happen to a person if he or she curses his father or mother. If you don't like what the Bible says or how we're interpreting it, show us how to interpret that one verse.

If you don't, I can only use prior statements of yours to deduce what you believe in this specific case.

You fail to understand; the question was answered. Don't allow Satan to confuse and keep you from the truth.

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 12:48 AM
You fail to understand; the question was answered. Don't allow Satan to confuse and keep you from the truth.

Sorry, I'm too stupid. You'll have to clarify. Do you think every person who curses his mother or father should be put to death? Yes or no?

Dolphin39
07-02-2007, 12:55 AM
Sorry, I'm too stupid. You'll have to clarify. Do you think every person who curses his mother or father should be put to death? Yes or no?

Under the new law, after Jesus died for our sins...no.

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 12:57 AM
Under the new law, after Jesus died for our sins...no.

Which means that you don't think ALL verses in the Bible are true.

adamprez2003
07-02-2007, 12:59 AM
Everything is just a different form of energy, so that's something science will back you up on.

But, you can show people lose conscious awareness of different things when you damage the functions different neural circuits have. No, we can't measure consciousness, but we can observe when an individual is not aware of certain information.

So, if you lesion one part of the brain, you see a predictable lack of awareness of certain types of information. Thus, whatever consciousness is, it seems to require physical circuits that process information in some way.

Something that doesn't process information thus is highly unlikely to be conscious. No, one can't prove that, but your belief is far less plausible than one that suggests consciousness emerges only when physical information-processing mechanisms exist.


And we can already show your claim of there being two states (only) in the universe of "being" and "not being" is almost certainly wrong. Quantum mechanics changed that 3/4 of a century ago. Now, a particle has an inherent probability of existing, not "either it exists or not".

So, that belief just doesn't fit with what we know (already) today about the nature of subatomic particles.



Finally, if you are going to claim that everything that exists IS God, then you have no justification for using a different label than one we already use: Nature.

What you are speaking of is Nature, not God, even IF it has consciousness.

God by definition has to be distinct from Nature (as a set). Your concept isn't as far as I can see.

There are basically three types of belief systems when it comes to God. The absence of God (aetheism), the seperate God ( a creator who resides in a part of the universe or outside of it. He created either man or the earth or the universe and manipulates from somewhere) or the inclusive God (who created the universe but is at the same time not seperate from it) Nature is not deterministic, God is, so the names have to vary to account for the difference

As for universal consciousness being possible, I believe it would be impossible for us to determine that at this stage of our development. Quantum theory seems to allow for an instaneous sharing of sub atomic particles over vast cosmic distances instantaneously (If there are new proofs that disprove this notion please correct me for I am not as up to date as you on modern quantum theory) Additonally I believe is the concept that no information can be lost in the universe. The predominant theory is still that this is a closed system yes? I know some new theories suggest multiverses and open ended systems but I believe we still hold to the closed system concept as being the most likely. So my belief is that somehow this universal information is consciously absorbed through some being and that if needed he can manipulate the system to suit his needs (there is no proof or evidence just theory)

As for the states, I know there are more than just two states scientifically but on a certain metaphorical level there are only two, nothingness and something. Unless there is no such thing as nothingness (void). If science can prove that empty space does not exist than I will be proven wrong on this account

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't something like 90% of the subatomic world empty void and therefore isn't the universe mostly void. In fact arent we still searching for proof of why matter exists? I mean with so much void the solid nature of rock lets say is something of a mystery isn't it? I know we have theories regarding it but has it been proven yet why matter can retain a so called solid state?

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 01:07 AM
There are basically three types of belief systems when it comes to God. The absence of God (aetheism), the seperate God ( a creator who resides in a part of the universe or outside of it. He created either man or the earth or the universe and manipulates from somewhere) or the inclusive God (who created the universe but is at the same time not seperate from it) Nature is not deterministic, God is, so the names have to vary to account for the difference

The last one is still separate from Nature if considered as a set of elements. Nature is a set that consists of a different SET of elements than "God" under that belief, since God under that belief includes Nature AND God.

But, what you described before suggests nothing separate from what we call Nature.

Also, there are more possibilities than what you listed. For example, the problem could be undecidable. That means that Nature is built in such a way that precludes the possibility of us solving that problem. In this scenario, assuming God exists or not never leads to a contradiction. That's of course different from all three you listed.

And there is even a fifth. Using quantum mechanics, you could actually propose there is an inherent probability of something existing called God. It neither exists nor doesn't exist. It exists with a probability.

Well, anyway, if you go by DATA, the best set of assumptions does NOT include God and simply refers to whatever information processing ability Nature has as part of Nature.

So, you really don't need to introduce a new label - Nature works fine. And you'll also increase the ability to support that claim with scientific evidence if you do so (though the errors I pointed out you'll have to correct).

adamprez2003
07-02-2007, 01:10 AM
The last one is still separate from Nature if considered as a set of elements. Nature is a set that consists of a different SET of elements than "God" under that belief, since God under that belief includes Nature AND God.

But, what you described before suggests nothing separate from what we call Nature.

Also, there are more possibilities than what you listed. For example, the problem could be undecidable. That means that Nature is built in such a way that precludes the possibility of us solving that problem. In this scenario, assuming God exists or not never leads to a contradiction. That's of course different from all three you listed.

And there is even a fifth. Using quantum mechanics, you could actually propose there is an inherent probability of something existing called God. It neither exists nor doesn't exist. It exists with a probability.

Well, anyway, if you go by DATA, the best set of assumptions does NOT include God and simply refers to whatever information processing ability Nature has as part of Nature.

So, you really don't need to introduce a new label - Nature works fine. And you'll also increase the ability to support that claim with scientific evidence if you do so (though the errors I pointed out you'll have to correct).

Hang out a moment lol. I have to keep editing my posts because if I write to long I get logged out and have to start from scratch:lol:

Dolphin39
07-02-2007, 01:10 AM
Which means that you don't think ALL verses in the Bible are true.

You obviously want to agrue because you ignore what I said about the law being changed and because Jesus died for our sins, therefore there is no longer a need to live under the old laws of the "old testament".

However, I'm sure you'll have a quick explanation of what caused all of existance that you and I see to evolve. What was present before the "big bang" and what caused the bang in the first place?

The path to destruction is wide indeed.

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 01:18 AM
You obviously want to agrue because you ignore what I said about the law being changed and because Jesus died for our sins, therefore there is no longer a need to live under the old laws of the "old testament".

However, I'm sure you'll have a quick explanation of what caused all of existance that you and I see to evolve. What was present before the "big bang" and what caused the bang in the first place?

The path to destruction is wide indeed.

If the law was changed, then the previous law is no longer valid. So, you don't believe all verses are "true" or "valid". You're close to admitting it, but not yet there.


And I already put up a new thread on new physics that allows for us to seriously consider the possibility the Big Bang was more of a Big Bounce than anything else and not the "beginning".
http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=202123

And I've told you before about how particles can come into and out of existence - a mechanism for creating something from nothing (virtual particles are an example of this). So, science is contributing to figuring out how we came into existence.

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 01:44 AM
As for universal consciousness being possible, I believe it would be impossible for us to determine that at this stage of our development. Quantum theory seems to allow for an instaneous sharing of sub atomic particles over vast cosmic distances instantaneously (If there are new proofs that disprove this notion please correct me for I am not as up to date as you on modern quantum theory) Additonally I believe is the concept that no information can be lost in the universe. The predominant theory is still that this is a closed system yes? I know some new theories suggest multiverses and open ended systems but I believe we still hold to the closed system concept as being the most likely. So my belief is that somehow this universal information is consciously absorbed through some being and that if needed he can manipulate the system to suit his needs (there is no proof or evidence just theory)

As for the states, I know there are more than just two states scientifically but on a certain metaphorical level there are only two, nothingness and something. Unless there is no such thing as nothingness (void). If science can prove that empty space does not exist than I will be proven wrong on this account

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't something like 90% of the subatomic world empty void and therefore isn't the universe mostly void. In fact arent we still searching for proof of why matter exists? I mean with so much void the solid nature of rock lets say is something of a mystery isn't it? I know we have theories regarding it but has it been proven yet why matter can retain a so called solid state?

OK, I'm going to go ahead and reply to this now since I'm planning on sleeping soon. If you add more by tomorrow I'll pick it up then.

Your first sentence, no disagreement.

Second sentence. QM allows for instantaneous transfer of information, NOT particles. The particles themselves (made of matter) can't go faster than the speed of light.

The part of about information and the universe depends on the question asked. It seems black holes might actually destroy or at least reduce the amount of information that goes into it. On the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics means entropy increases over time (in the entire system) and entropy is a measure of information. So, depending on the question you ask, the information content of the universe might increase or in parts decrease.

I think you're confusing that with energy. No energy can be lost in a closed system.

And yes, the predominant theories assume a closed universe, not an infinite open one.

The second paragraph is not good reasoning though. If it's already been shown scientifically there is a probability of existence, you shouldn't try to wind the clock back and ignore the evidence that brought us to that conclusion. You have to revise your ideas to take the evidence into account.

Also, there isn't really anything that is a true "void". Even "empty" space consists of energy with particles coming into and out of existence.

For the final paragraph, you're confusing dark matter/dark energy and normal matter. Only about 5% of the mass in the universe seems to be made of the kind of matter we're used to. The rest is made of something we can't directly observe called dark matter or dark energy. It's too early to know anything about this stuff except that it's becoming more likely it actually exists.

And the problem with the existence of matter usually has to do with why there isn't an equal amount of matter and anti-matter. Maybe it's due to some variance very early on in the history of the universe, but that's still being theorized and investigated.

The last part about having a "solid state" is probably something you're confusing with something else, though I can't figure out what that something else is. Particle physics today is relatively well advanced and we can predict almost all properties of normal matter, including all its states (there are something like 6 or so, not just the three you're familiar with).

Den54
07-02-2007, 06:53 AM
Jesus came and died for all. We no longer live following the laws of the Old Testament. We now live according to God's gift, Jesus Christ. BTW, Jesus' cruxifiction is outlined in the New Testament.

It will take time for you to understand, more time than we have exchanging here on the forum. My advice is to go to a Bible believing church. I would suggest you go to a good Southern Baptist Church and spend time in fellowship with them. There you will learn a better understanding of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Bible in general.

Well there it is.

Pagan
07-02-2007, 07:31 AM
End of it all, I could care less what you or anyone else believes, or perceives of me or of my beliefs. I feel that strongly about my beliefs that I don't need you or anyone else to validate them. So yes...the manner in which you chimed in seemed like a fly to me. Don't get offended. Be like me, and don't care what anyone thinks. I've seen your posts on here, and overall I like you. I just don't believe what you believe.


I believe that my beliefs are fact. (There, you got it. :wink: ) If I didn't believe they were fact, I couldn't really be believing. Could I ?
1. I thought you were logging off? :lol:

2. Overall, I like you too Scrap....but where do you get the idea you offended me? I said - if you look at my post - that you were trying to insult me. All due respect, but I could give a rat's *** what you or anyone else thinks of me. :wink:

3. I don't believe what you believe either, the difference being I'm not in here polluting the forum with my beliefs, claiming them to the "truth" and giving the "ooh so scary" warning of "the path to destruction is wide" nonsense like D39 is. :wink:


I would suggest you go to a good Southern Baptist Church and spend time in fellowship with them.
The same kind of people who picket Disneyworld whenever something comes up that pisses them off?

Yikes.

Sponge
07-04-2007, 10:11 AM
He flat out said he has no respect for the Bible. Can you not see where this would anger anyone who believes ? Here ya go...Simple question: Does he believe in the existence of a God ? Yes or no ?

I don't see why a believer would get angry with that at all. What difference does it make if others believe the same thing as you? Does it somehow diminish your experience of God because another person doesn't share it?

Scrap
07-04-2007, 01:29 PM
1. I thought you were logging off? :lol:

2. Overall, I like you too Scrap....but where do you get the idea you offended me? I said - if you look at my post - that you were trying to insult me. All due respect, but I could give a rat's *** what you or anyone else thinks of me. :wink:

3. I don't believe what you believe either, the difference being I'm not in here polluting the forum with my beliefs, claiming them to the "truth" and giving the "ooh so scary" warning of "the path to destruction is wide" nonsense like D39 is. :wink:


The same kind of people who picket Disneyworld whenever something comes up that pisses them off?

Yikes.You got that way wrong. I'm telling you my beliefs (what I believe to be true) in a thread about Bible quotes. This is the place for that. I'm not knocking on your front door like a Jehovah's witness. (Frankly, that irritates the heck out of me too.) It can also be looked at as you and others saying our beliefs aren't true. Which that would be the equivalent to saying you think another belief is true. So who's really doing the polluting now ??

Scrap
07-04-2007, 01:33 PM
I don't see why a believer would get angry with that at all. What difference does it make if others believe the same thing as you? Does it somehow diminish your experience of God because another person doesn't share it?


Not believing, and flat out saying you have no respect for are two different ball games here.



If someone said that they have no respect for what you consider the most important, would you get offended ? :rolleyes: I'll be waiting for a ridiculous answer to that question. Please prove me wrong.

Den54
07-04-2007, 01:52 PM
Not believing, and flat out saying you have no respect for are two different ball games here.



If someone said that they have no respect for what you consider the most important, would you get offended ? :rolleyes: I'll be waiting for a ridiculous answer to that question. Please prove me wrong.

Once again no and why would you care?
Does it affect you one way or another whether someone believes or repects
your beliefs?

Perhaps with age and a little more maturity you won't be as emotionaly
affected by it.

Pagan
07-04-2007, 01:53 PM
You got that way wrong. I'm telling you my beliefs (what I believe to be true) in a thread about Bible quotes. This is the place for that. I'm not knocking on your front door like a Jehovah's witness. (Frankly, that irritates the heck out of me too.) It can also be looked at as you and others saying our beliefs aren't true. Which that would be the equivalent to saying you think another belief is true. So who's really doing the polluting now ??
And this is where you have it wrong Scrap. Why on EARTH would I say your beliefs are true? That would completely invalidate my own beliefs, wouldn't it?

I never said I don't have respect for anyone's beliefs, I just don't have any use for people stating (and I'll say this for the MILLIONTH time) that their beliefs are fact with nothing to support that statement, especially when one of their beliefs is them telling me I'll burn in a hell I don't believe in because I don't accept a "savior" I don't believe in.

You get it now?

Den54
07-04-2007, 01:59 PM
And this is where you have it wrong Scrap. Why on EARTH would I say your beliefs are true? That would completely invalidate my own beliefs, wouldn't it?

I never said I don't have respect for anyone's beliefs, I just don't have any use for people stating (and I'll say this for the MILLIONTH time) that their beliefs are fact with nothing to support that statement, especially when one of their beliefs is them telling me I'll burn in a hell I don't believe in because I don't accept a "savior" I don't believe in.

You get it now?


I doubt it.
I agree with you Pagan. Why would you respect someone's belief that has you roasting in hell. I know you respect thier right to believe what they want but that's where it ends.

Scrap
07-04-2007, 02:09 PM
And this is where you have it wrong Scrap. Why on EARTH would I say your beliefs are true? That would completely invalidate my own beliefs, wouldn't it?

I never said I don't have respect for anyone's beliefs, I just don't have any use for people stating (and I'll say this for the MILLIONTH time) that their beliefs are fact with nothing to support that statement, especially when one of their beliefs is them telling me I'll burn in a hell I don't believe in because I don't accept a "savior" I don't believe in.

You get it now? Have you even read this thread Pagan ? The scientist guy is the one who said he had no respect for the Bible. You were the one who came to his rescue. (Kind of heroic, I must say.) I wouldn't expect you to say my beliefs are true. It's those who try their best to disprove my beliefs, or say that I've got it wrong, that cross the line. I ask for the same respect with my religion that you do with yours. Funny thing....You are a Pagan, and you mock my lack of proof in the above post. Show me a spell Pagan. Since we need proof to support our beliefs now.

Thundercracker
07-04-2007, 02:11 PM
Under the new law, after Jesus died for our sins...no.

Does the new testament say anything about homosexuality?

Pagan
07-04-2007, 02:14 PM
Have you even read this thread Pagan ? The scientist guy is the one who said he had no respect for the Bible. You were the one who came to his rescue. (Kind of heroic, I must say.) I wouldn't expect you to say my beliefs are true. It's those who try their best to disprove my beliefs, or say that I've got it wrong, that cross the line. I ask for the same respect with my religion that you do with yours. Funny thing....You are a Pagan, and you mock my lack of proof in the above post. Show me a spell Pagan. Since we need proof to support our beliefs now.
I mock your lack of proof - and holy hell, do I have to beat you over the head with this? - because you say that what you believe and what you read in the bible is FACT. If you cannot handle people questioning when you say that what you believe in is fact, THEN DON'T SAY IT. This is an internet message board. You throw out a bold statement like that, then you'd better develop thick skin or a suit of armor. If you say such things and are called out on it, then stop whining....you've thrown out the bait, and those who disagree WILL take it.

As for me showing you proof of what I believe, you show me ONE instance where I claim my beliefs are FACT, and then yes...I'll have to come up with proof. I have NEVER stated that what I believe in is fact OR the "truth". I've only said it is what I have FAITH in.

Is what I believe the truth or fact? I have NO idea. I have faith that is is, but I would never - repeat NEVER - have the arrogance to claim it is, then cry like a baby when people disagree with me.

There's the difference between Christians and people of other faiths. Scrap.

Scrap
07-04-2007, 02:14 PM
I doubt it.
I agree with you Pagan. Why would you respect someone's belief that has you roasting in hell. I know you respect thier right to believe what they want but that's where it ends.Den, can you not see that the point of this thread was to question the sacred book of my religion ? I can't see where you can say you respect a Christians right to believe, and then defend the folks who attack Christianity at every opportunity.

Pagan
07-04-2007, 02:17 PM
Den, can you not see that the point of this thread was to question the sacred book of my religion ? I can't see where you can say you respect a Christians right to believe, and then defend the folks who attack Christianity at every opportunity.
I don't attack Christianity, Scrap. I attack arrogant Christians. If I attacked Christianity in general, my family would disown me.

Scrap
07-04-2007, 02:19 PM
I mock your lack of proof - and holy hell, do I have to beat you over the head with this? - because you say that what you believe and what you read in the bible is FACT. If you cannot handle people questioning whenb you say that what you believe in is fact, THEN DON'T SAY IT. If you say such things and are called out on it, then stop whining.

As for me showing you proof of what I believe, you show me ONE instance where I claim my beliefs are FACT, and then yes...I'll have to come up with proof. I have NEVER stated that what I believe in is fact OR the "truth". I've only said it is what I have FAITH in.

Is what I believe the truth or fact? I have NO idea. I have faith that is is, but I would never - repeat NEVER - have the arrogance to claim it is, then cry like a baby when people disagree with me.

There's the difference between Christians and people of other faiths. Scrap. Maybe that difference is we really believe it is fact. Faith ?????.....You mock my faith. Yet it is apparent that you haven't enough "faith" in your own beliefs to believe it's fact. Sounds like you're just giving yourself an opportunity to change up at any time.

Scrap
07-04-2007, 02:21 PM
I don't attack Christianity, Scrap. I attack arrogant Christians. If I attacked Christianity in general, my family would disown me.
Having a strong belief is not arrogance. :rolleyes:

Den54
07-04-2007, 02:21 PM
Den, can you not see that the point of this thread was to question the sacred book of my religion ? I can't see where you can say you respect a Christians right to believe, and then defend the folks who attack Christianity at every opportunity.

Well I think you are throwing the word attack around a little losely but whatever.

Post #97 by Pagan would be my response to why I would defend the other people who disagree with you.

I think you just need to simma don nah a little and realize that your beliefs may be factual to you but that doesn't mean they are.

Den54
07-04-2007, 02:25 PM
Having a strong belief is not arrogance. :rolleyes:


I agree.

Pagan
07-04-2007, 02:26 PM
Maybe that difference is we really believe it is fact. Faith ?????.....You mock my faith. Yet it is apparent that you haven't enough "faith" in your own beliefs to believe it's fact. Sounds like you're just giving yourself an opportunity to change up at any time.
You spin more than a Kenmore dryer bro. :lol:

I will never change my beliefs, I'm just not arrogant enough to say they are fact. I will only say something is fact when I see it with my own eyes or until it is proven to me. Until then, to say something is fact when you have NO idea if it is or not is asinine. I'm also not arrogant enough to claim I worship the "one true" diety either. I believe there's plenty of room in the cosmos for more than one god or goddess, even yours.

I have more than enough faith in what I believe in, so there's no way I'll "change up". Again, it's the arrogance of Christians that cause them to be mocked. You don't see anyone mocking Jews or Buddhists in here, do you?

As for mocking religions, you have some set of gonads. Turn on your TV when Halloween rolls around, and look at the multitude of mockery aimed at Witches that was started, nurtured, and spread by Christians. So cry me a river about the mocking.


Having a strong belief is not arrogance. :rolleyes:

I agree.
I agree also. Telling people that what you believe is FACT, and that they're going to burn for eternity for not sharing that belief however, IS arrogant.

Scrap
07-04-2007, 02:28 PM
Well I think you are throwing the word attack around a little losely but whatever.

Post #97 by Pagan would be my response to why I would defend the other people who disagree with you.

I think you just need to simma don nah a little and realize that your beliefs may be factual to you but that doesn't mean they are.What would you call it ?

Pagan
07-04-2007, 02:29 PM
What would you call it ?
Debating.

Den54
07-04-2007, 02:30 PM
What would you call it ?

Heated debate?:)

Scrap
07-04-2007, 02:39 PM
When asked how I believe about the afterlife, I must respond truthfully. Sorry if it hurts anyone. Besides, if you had read my past posts in this thread, you would probably understand that not all of my beliefs parallel that of the average Christian.


Bottom line....This is one of those threads that are set in place to attack Christianity, and you know it. Don't kid yourself with thinking otherwise.

Scrap
07-04-2007, 02:43 PM
Then that's what us Christians are doing....Debating.

Den54
07-04-2007, 02:46 PM
When asked how I believe about the afterlife, I must respond truthfully. Sorry if it hurts anyone. Besides, if you had read my past posts in this thread, you would probably understand that not all of my beliefs parallel that of the average Christian.


Bottom line....This is one of those threads that are set in place to attack Christianity, and you know it. Don't kid yourself with thinking otherwise.


Thats fine. We can agree to disagree.
This thread was about contridicting quotes from the bible.
Thats prime ground for debating.
Where you got Christianity as a whole being under attack is beyond me.

Sponge
07-08-2007, 12:26 PM
Not believing, and flat out saying you have no respect for are two different ball games here.



If someone said that they have no respect for what you consider the most important, would you get offended ? :rolleyes: I'll be waiting for a ridiculous answer to that question. Please prove me wrong.

What is the point of ever answering a question to a person who has pre-determined that the answer is ridiculous?

However, to answer your question, I would not get offended normally if a person disrespected my beliefs. I would disagree if I felt it was worth it, and ask them to be as respectful to me as they would like me to be to them. If I was having a bad day and did get offended, I would work at accepting that it is my choice to be offended. Their intent to offend me is irrelevant until I choose to be upset about it.

Rafiki
07-08-2007, 01:06 PM
I will never change my beliefs, I'm just not arrogant enough to say they are fact. I will only say something is fact when I see it with my own eyes or until it is proven to me. Until then, to say something is fact when you have NO idea if it is or not is asinine. I'm also not arrogant enough to claim I worship the "one true" diety either. I believe there's plenty of room in the cosmos for more than one god or goddess, even yours.

I have more than enough faith in what I believe in, so there's no way I'll "change up". Again, it's the arrogance of Christians that cause them to be mocked. You don't see anyone mocking Jews or Buddhists in here, do you?

What's the point in believing if you have to see your Goddess before you will say you know she exists?

I've seen faith do unexplainable things in my life. But for faith to work, it must begin with the conviction that what you believe is true.

Pagan
07-08-2007, 02:20 PM
What's the point in believing if you have to see your Goddess before you will say you know she exists?

I've seen faith do unexplainable things in my life. But for faith to work, it must begin with the conviction that what you believe is true.
Maybe you should read what I say a little more carefully Rafiki. I said I DO believe She exists. However, I'm not arrogant enough to tell people that it's a fact, when I DON'T have any proof.

from Merriam Webster:


Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Rafiki
07-08-2007, 07:18 PM
Maybe you should read what I say a little more carefully Rafiki. I said I DO believe She exists. However, I'm not arrogant enough to tell people that it's a fact, when I DON'T have any proof.

from Merriam Webster:



If there's uncertainty, then how can it be faith?

Pagan
07-08-2007, 09:46 PM
If there's uncertainty, then how can it be faith?
Did you not read that definition? If there's certainty, then there's NO need for faith. It's there in front of you.

I don't have faith in the sun, I KNOW it's there in the morning.

Quelonio
07-09-2007, 12:23 PM
I've read the bible, as literature it is horribly boring, as a historical document it is interesting despite clear bias in favor of a particular group of people (which has led to absolute mis-portrayals of awesome civilizations like the babilonians and other semitic groups that shared the land that is now Israel and Palestinia).

The new testament is just as unreadable, especially once you know that all the gospels where written at least 100 years after the death of christ, therefore leaving them with pretty much no historical value (as they where not historical records but accounts made by people who where furthering a certain set of beliefs).

Frankly, I don't care about the book, at all, I find that other books are way more interesting. Then again I do not believe in good, and had a teacher forcing me to read it... so...

Scrap
07-09-2007, 12:31 PM
I've read the bible, as literature it is horribly boring, as a historical document it is interesting despite clear bias in favor of a particular group of people (which has led to absolute mis-portrayals of awesome civilizations like the babilonians and other semitic groups that shared the land that is now Israel and Palestinia).

The new testament is just as unreadable, especially once you know that all the gospels where written at least 100 years after the death of christ, therefore leaving them with pretty much no historical value (as they where not historical records but accounts made by people who where furthering a certain set of beliefs).

Frankly, I don't care about the book, at all, I find that other books are way more interesting. Then again I do not believe in good, and had a teacher forcing me to read it... so...I know what you meant here, but the irony is funny.

Alex44
07-09-2007, 12:38 PM
I've read the bible, as literature it is horribly boring, as a historical document it is interesting despite clear bias in favor of a particular group of people (which has led to absolute mis-portrayals of awesome civilizations like the babilonians and other semitic groups that shared the land that is now Israel and Palestinia).

The new testament is just as unreadable, especially once you know that all the gospels where written at least 100 years after the death of christ, therefore leaving them with pretty much no historical value (as they where not historical records but accounts made by people who where furthering a certain set of beliefs).

Frankly, I don't care about the book, at all, I find that other books are way more interesting. Then again I do not believe in good, and had a teacher forcing me to read it... so...

I'm atheist but I read all sorts of books that try and provide proof of God (as well as the bible) I always like to know both sides of any arguement, so when someone questions my beliefs (they always do) I can disprove theirs....

The Rev
07-09-2007, 12:48 PM
Did you not read that definition? If there's certainty, then there's NO need for faith. It's there in front of you.

I don't have faith in the sun, I KNOW it's there in the morning.

Brother Pagan, then can faith be surnmised as that unexplainable space between a person and God where you have to trust.

In other words, not everything can be explained. There are just some things that are going to have to be trusted upon. That would be faith, IMO.


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

Pagan
07-09-2007, 01:03 PM
Brother Pagan, then can faith be surnmised as that unexplainable space between a person and God where you have to trust.

In other words, not everything can be explained. There are just some things that are going to have to be trusted upon. That would be faith, IMO.
No Rev, faith is belief in the diety itself...because we will never be sure that this diety exists until we meet them.

No one person can say that they know for sure their god exists, because if a Christian says so and then scoffs at someone who believes in another god - saying that HIS is the "one true" god - what makes HIS confidence that HIS god is real any more believable than the Buddhist who says HIS is?

The entire ball of wax is faith, Rev. No matter what anyone claims.

Alex44
07-09-2007, 01:10 PM
No Rev, faith is belief in the diety itself...because we will never be sure that this diety exists until we meet them.

No one person can say that they know for sure their god exists, because if a Christian says so and then scoffs at someone who believes in another god - saying that HIS is the "one true" god - what makes HIS confidence that HIS god is real any more believable than the Buddhist who says HIS is?

The entire ball of wax is faith, Rev. No matter what anyone claims.

No-one can ever know for sure, but we should use our best educated guess based on science, the laws of physics, and just plain philosophy.

For me that points undeniable in the direction of no God, but I'm always willing to listen to any arguement someone has as long as they don't make up facts or claim to KNOW for sure anything.

Honestly what makes faith in scientology and more crazy than faith in another unproven religion that doesn't have many facts on it's side?

ckb2001
07-09-2007, 01:41 PM
No Rev, faith is belief in the diety itself...because we will never be sure that this diety exists until we meet them.


Actually, one of the problems with demonstrating the existence of God is that no one knows what observation to call God (no definition).

So, no, it's not clear that even if we saw God we would label what we see as God. I mean how would you know what you are seeing is God?

"God" is an idea like an infinite number of other ideas for which no known test exists, including observation of it.

Pagan
07-09-2007, 01:50 PM
Actually, one of the problems with demonstrating the existence of God is that no one knows what observation to call God (no definition).

So, no, it's not clear that even if we saw God we would label what we see as God. I mean how would you know what you are seeing is God?

"God" is an idea like an infinite number of other ideas for which no known test exists, including observation of it.
What I meant is that after I die if I'm standing on a cloud somewhere and my Goddess is standing in front of me, I think I'll have a pretty good notion of who She is. :wink:

ckb2001
07-09-2007, 01:51 PM
What I meant is that after I die if I'm standing on a cloud somewhere and my Goddess is standing in front of me, I think I'll have a pretty good notion of who She is. :wink:

She better be beautiful :tongue:

Quelonio
07-09-2007, 02:09 PM
I know what you meant here, but the irony is funny.

yeah I guess. I mean I believe in god, I just don't believe in God... if you know what I mean. Buddha himself is not a God, but there is some other figure out there, as it is I rather just live life trying to comply with the Dharma, than worry about whether or not there is a God out there.

Den54
07-09-2007, 02:21 PM
Actually, one of the problems with demonstrating the existence of God is that no one knows what observation to call God (no definition).

So, no, it's not clear that even if we saw God we would label what we see as God. I mean how would you know what you are seeing is God?
"God" is an idea like an infinite number of other ideas for which no known test exists, including observation of it.


Something tells me that you will know.

Quelonio
07-09-2007, 03:23 PM
Something tells me that you will know.

kind of a funny thing that then your sig says that the more you see the less you know for sure, which sort of plays to what ck was saying... I though it was funny.... ok... carry on....

ckb2001
07-09-2007, 08:06 PM
Something tells me that you will know.

When you can articulate that something and give us a description of a test, please tell us :wink:

Rafiki
07-11-2007, 08:18 PM
Did you not read that definition? If there's certainty, then there's NO need for faith. It's there in front of you.

I don't have faith in the sun, I KNOW it's there in the morning.

So you're uncertain whether or not your goddess exists?

I don't believe that's what you're saying, but I had to ask. To me (online dictionary be damned) faith is absolute certainty about something that is unprovable until the time comes when it will be proven or disproven. Like an athlete can have faith that his or her team will make the playoffs, he is certain they will, until they fall below .500 or lose their division.

Also I don't believe that if someone says they know for a fact that something that is unprovable exists, that the statement automatically makes them arrogant. First off, it's unprovable and unscientific. There's no debating that fact. Science and religion are two very separate and unique disciplines to view one's world through. Asking someone to prove scientifically that a god exists is like asking someone to make a mathematical proof of this post, the two are totally unrelated.

Finally, I do read each of your posts very carefully. However, if repeatedly asking me if I read them makes you feel better, continue to do so.

ckb2001
07-11-2007, 09:49 PM
So you're uncertain whether or not your goddess exists?

I don't believe that's what you're saying, but I had to ask. To me (online dictionary be damned) faith is absolute certainty about something that is unprovable until the time comes when it will be proven or disproven. Like an athlete can have faith that his or her team will make the playoffs, he is certain they will, until they fall below .500 or lose their division.

Also I don't believe that if someone says they know for a fact that something that is unprovable exists, that the statement automatically makes them arrogant. First off, it's unprovable and unscientific. There's no debating that fact. Science and religion are two very separate and unique disciplines to view one's world through. Asking someone to prove scientifically that a god exists is like asking someone to make a mathematical proof of this post, the two are totally unrelated.

Finally, I do read each of your posts very carefully. However, if repeatedly asking me if I read them makes you feel better, continue to do so.


Just one thing:

Defining faith as in the bolded part above leads to a bit of a contradiction. You're assuming there could come a time where something you have faith in could be proven or disproven. That of course means you are NOT absolutely certain what you have faith in is true. I mean if you are absolutely certain (with no if's, and's or but's), then you can't allow for the possibility it could be disproven at some later time.

Scrap
07-12-2007, 07:02 AM
I really don't think you are able to comprehend what Rafiki is saying. Your mindset is so science oriented, that you can't understand a religious mindset. Faith is exactly what he said.

Pagan
07-12-2007, 07:14 AM
So you're uncertain whether or not your goddess exists?
Of course not. To me She exists. Does She for sure? No one knows.


I don't believe that's what you're saying, but I had to ask. To me (online dictionary be damned) faith is absolute certainty about something that is unprovable until the time comes when it will be proven or disproven. Like an athlete can have faith that his or her team will make the playoffs, he is certain they will, until they fall below .500 or lose their division.
So you're asking me questions based on YOUR definition of faith, and not the definition most widely used by everyone else? The parallel is delicious, because isn't that what Christians do in the first place, base everything on what they feel is the truth? :wink:

And the example you give shows hope, not faith. If your team sucks you know it. You still hold on to the hope that you'll make the playoffs.


Also I don't believe that if someone says they know for a fact that something that is unprovable exists, that the statement automatically makes them arrogant.
Maybe not, but when they force what they believe on everyone else and tell everyone else that they're wrong and that they will suffer for it...then they are arrogant.


First off, it's unprovable and unscientific. There's no debating that fact. Science and religion are two very separate and unique disciplines to view one's world through. Asking someone to prove scientifically that a god exists is like asking someone to make a mathematical proof of this post, the two are totally unrelated.
No one would ask ANY Christian to prove anything if - and here it comes again - they weren't arrogant enough to proclaim to the world that their way was the only way and that science is wrong and they're right and that everyone else is damned. Bottom line, keep your religion to yourselves and people will leave you alone. :wink:


Finally, I do read each of your posts very carefully. However, if repeatedly asking me if I read them makes you feel better, continue to do so.
Don't be so ****ing condescending Rafiki. I was saying that because until you pointed out to me that you follow the Rafiki Dictionary and not the one everyone else uses, and I had explained what faith is, I thought you missed it. I also answered your questions and you kept asking them. That tends to make one think you didn't read the post thoroughly.


I really don't think you are able to comprehend what Rafiki is saying. Your mindset is so science oriented, that you can't understand a religious mindset. Faith is exactly what he said.
He's using a logical mindset. And in that case, you're right...he'll never understand a religious mindset, cause religion and logic don't even live in the same country.

Den54
07-12-2007, 07:28 AM
Of course not. To me She exists. Does She for sure? No one knows.


So you're asking me questions based on YOUR definition of faith, and not the definition most widely used by everyone else? The parallel is delicious, because isn't that what Christians do in the first place, base everything on what they feel is the truth? :wink:

And the example you give shows hope, not faith. If your team sucks you know it. You still hold on to the hope that you'll make the playoffs.


Maybe not, but when they force what they believe on everyone else and tell everyone else that they're wrong and that they will suffer for it...then they are arrogant.


No one would ask ANY Christian to prove anything if - and here it comes again - they weren't arrogant enough to proclaim to the world that their way was the only way and that science is wrong and they're right and that everyone else is damned. Bottom line, keep your religion to yourselves and people will leave you alone. :wink:


Don't be so ****ing condescending Rafiki. I was saying that because until you pointed out to me that you follow the Rafiki Dictionary and not the one everyone else uses, and I had explained what faith is, I thought you missed it. I also answered your questions and you kept asking them. That tends to make one think you didn't read the post thoroughly.


He's using a logical mindset. And in that case, you're right...he'll never understand a religious mindset, cause religion and logic don't even live in the same country.


:coffee::yeahthat:

Scrap
07-12-2007, 02:09 PM
He's using a logical mindset. And in that case, you're right...he'll never understand a religious mindset, cause religion and logic don't even live in the same country. I wasn't trying to attack or offend. Looking back, maybe it could be perceived that way. I wanted to clarify my statement, just in case. I hope nobody took it that way.

Pagan
07-12-2007, 03:04 PM
I wasn't trying to attack or offend. Looking back, maybe it could be perceived that way. I wanted to clarify my statement, just in case. I hope nobody took it that way.
No bro, I didn't take it that way...and my comment wasn't an attack either. Religion has always defied logic.

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 03:38 PM
Very interesting debate/discussion that has taken place, in lieu of the actual thread topic.

Question: How different in most folks mind is the concept of Hope & Faith?

Also, CKB, I believe I understand about your desire for scientific TESTs that provide evidence to help prove or disprove beliefs. Kind of like the ol' turning WATER into WINE...you want some kind of a "Chardonnaytion" Process?

But would one acknowledge, wouldnt one, that science's inability to provide "evidence" toward explaining a given mystery, does not bring the probablity to zero that said mystery could be fact? Is a "faith-based" belief not a probable fact unless its proven by scientific law and tests? Or is it simply a fact that has yet to be scientifically validated? Can a probablity of greater than zero, still not materialize into 100% fact in a percentage of societies mind, without the scientific world ever learing about it? Does the scientific validation carry any more weight to those that already believe based on faith? Should it?

It seems, and correct me if I am inaccurate, your greatest concern is how one can have a belief based on faith/hope alone, but with no evidence/proof?

That is a hard thing to fathom. It really defines the beauty of it in a very spiritual "unscientific" way.

Scrap
07-12-2007, 03:44 PM
No bro, I didn't take it that way...and my comment wasn't an attack either. Religion has always defied logic.
I didn't take yours as an attack either.

Pagan
07-12-2007, 03:53 PM
Is a "faith-based" belief not a probable fact unless its proven by scientific law and tests? Or is it simply a fact that has yet to be scientifically validated?
It is neither. You can't call anything that is based on faith a "fact". The only things that can be called facts are those that can be proven.

This is why they're called "beliefs". :wink:

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 03:56 PM
It is neither. You can't call anything that is based on faith a "fact". The only things that can be called facts are those that can be proven.

This is why they're called "beliefs". :wink:

Ahh, however, some would say letting science and math catch up at their speed did not make it any more or less fact to them.

I question if many would state that FACTS can only be called FACTS once they are proven my human beings.

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 03:56 PM
Doubting Thomas, it is said, had this very belief (where only that which can be touched or seen, can be accepted as fact)....funny huh!

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 03:59 PM
It is neither. You can't call anything that is based on faith a "fact". The only things that can be called facts are those that can be proven.

This is why they're called "beliefs". :wink:

Something else to ponder. A belief can be a fact from day one!

I suspect in many instance you believed something long before the scientific, or religous world assisted in helping you factually comprehend it.

Their respective contribution helps you appreciate it as a fact, but since you always believed it, it has always been a fact from the start, it may simply be validated so that those that didnt believe can now do so comfortably, but it was a fact none the less.

It certainly works in reverse, where beliefs and hopes, become disproven by the SCIENCES of this world.

Thats where CKB would, I suspect, agree the "probability" factor comes into play.

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 04:01 PM
The only things that can be called facts are those that can be proven.

This is why they're called "beliefs". :wink:

Who among us is annoited as the "PROVERS?"

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 05:49 PM
Very interesting debate/discussion that has taken place, in lieu of the actual thread topic.

Question: How different in most folks mind is the concept of Hope & Faith?

Also, CKB, I believe I understand about your desire for scientific TESTs that provide evidence to help prove or disprove beliefs. Kind of like the ol' turning WATER into WINE...you want some kind of a "Chardonnaytion" Process?

But would one acknowledge, wouldnt one, that science's inability to provide "evidence" toward explaining a given mystery, does not bring the probablity to zero that said mystery could be fact? Is a "faith-based" belief not a probable fact unless its proven by scientific law and tests? Or is it simply a fact that has yet to be scientifically validated? Can a probablity of greater than zero, still not materialize into 100% fact in a percentage of societies mind, without the scientific world ever learing about it? Does the scientific validation carry any more weight to those that already believe based on faith? Should it?

It seems, and correct me if I am inaccurate, your greatest concern is how one can have a belief based on faith/hope alone, but with no evidence/proof?

That is a hard thing to fathom. It really defines the beauty of it in a very spiritual "unscientific" way.

Let me respond to the questions in the order presented.

To the question of the difference between hope and faith, it's simple: one can hope for something to occur yet not think it's likely to occur, but one can't have faith that something will occur and also think it's not likely it will occur.

To the question about "Chardonnaytion" process, I have no idea what that is (couldn't find it on google either). So, you'll have to explain.

To the question of what is necessary to determine the probability an omnipotent God that created everything exists, here's the proof again:

1) All knowledge we have constitutes a finite amount of information (we can measure information, say through Shannon's theorem, and even representations of infinite sets are finite, so the total amount of information humans have is finite).

2) Through any set of finite data points, an infinite number of distinct functions can be fitted. That means there are an infinite number of possible solutions that perfectly fit all data gathered.

3) The assumption an omnipotent God exists that created everything is a unique model. Why? Because you have a "God" variable that completely determines all others, meaning you can't have any relations in your model among the variables (or you add a constraint that the "God" variable is limited by).

4) Since there is only one such unique model out of an infinite number, the probability it is accurate is 1/infinity = zero.
--------------


So, using that proof, we can look at your questions in the 4th paragraph where you ask about the probability. To the first question in the paragraph, as you see, the complete inability of science to determine whether God exists or not is irrelevant for the proof, so yes we can determine the probability God exists is zero even given the current limitations of science.

To the next two questions, any faith-based or non-faith based model has a zero probability of being correct even IF it fits all known data as long as there are only a finite number of such models. On the other hand, if there are possibly an infinite number of such models and all those models fit the data perfectly, then you can't determine the probability as I did.

So, if you ask what is the probability a God that is NOT omnipotent, but close to omnipotent exists, no one can show the probability of that is zero or any other number, since there are an infinite number of such models, and infinity/infinity is undefined (meaning it could be any number).

To the next question about probabilities changing based on which "mind" you're looking at, the answer is no. If a model you have fits 97% of the data points, and no other information is given, then that's the probability it will fit the next data point. Of course, as more information is added, the probability can change, but it does NOT change based on the observer (for the kinds of questions we're asking).

And to the question about the weight assigned to scientific methodology, the answer is that it does have greater utility than non-scientific methodology in cases where science can actually determine the accuracy of the model because any non-random method of decision-making is better (meaning the choice it makes has higher utility based on that individual's utility function) with known probabilities for each possible choice you could make.

In religion and philosophy, claims are allowed even if there is no known means of testing them. This means we have no idea whether it's better to assume one such idea over another when we have to make such a decision. And we have to make such decisions all the time - every new technology that results from a research and development process exists ONLY because there is information about the accuracy of the model through testing (or mathematical deduction).

So, yes it also should be the preferred method when there are scientific theories one can rely on. Just look around you and note that we wouldn't have almost any of the technology (medical, military, industrial, etc..) we have today without preferring scientific methodology over non-scientific ones. I mean you ever hear the military ask a priest or a philosopher to design a quieter submarine??

And to the next paragraph, my problem lies with not using the best known method available, that's all. If we can test how old the Earth is, then don't claim it is only a few thousand years old unless your theory makes more accurate predictions than all other competing theories.

And in cases where no science exists, then one shouldn't be dishonest about the probability that claim is true. The probability God exists is zero percent. It's certainly possible it doesn't. But, there are many out there that think there is NO possible way they could be wrong saying God exists, and that's just dishonest. That's what I don't like: not using the best available methodology.

Oh, and this is about what is true or not, not what feels better (or whether you think that's beautiful).

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 05:51 PM
I question if many would state that FACTS can only be called FACTS once they are proven my human beings.

Every fact in science is a claim for which the probability it is true is so high there's no practical reason to doubt it. That doesn't mean it won't be shown not to be a fact in the future.

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 05:52 PM
Doubting Thomas, it is said, had this very belief (where only that which can be touched or seen, can be accepted as fact)....funny huh!

We can't touch or see gamma rays, but it's stupid not to think they exist. So doubting Thomas is behind the times.

Oh, and many things in logic/mathematics are true but can't be seen or touched.

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 06:14 PM
Let me respond to the questions in the order presented.

To the question of the difference between hope and faith, it's simple: one can hope for something to occur yet not think it's likely to occur, but one can't have faith that something will occur and also think it's not likely it will occur.

To the question about "Chardonnaytion" process, I have no idea what that is (couldn't find it on google either). So, you'll have to explain.

To the question of what is necessary to determine the probability an omnipotent God that created everything exists, here's the proof again:

1) All knowledge we have constitutes a finite amount of information (we can measure information, say through Shannon's theorem, and even representations of infinite sets are finite, so the total amount of information humans have is finite).

2) Through any set of finite data points, an infinite number of distinct functions can be fitted. That means there are an infinite number of possible solutions that perfectly fit all data gathered.

3) The assumption an omnipotent God exists that created everything is a unique model. Why? Because you have a "God" variable that completely determines all others, meaning you can't have any relations in your model among the variables (or you add a constraint that the "God" variable is limited by).

4) Since there is only one such unique model out of an infinite number, the probability it is accurate is 1/infinity = zero.
--------------


So, using that proof, we can look at your questions in the 4th paragraph where you ask about the probability. To the first question in the paragraph, as you see, the complete inability of science to determine whether God exists or not is irrelevant for the proof, so yes we can determine the probability God exists is zero even given the current limitations of science.

To the next two questions, any faith-based or non-faith based model has a zero probability of being correct even IF it fits all known data as long as there are only a finite number of such models. On the other hand, if there are possibly an infinite number of such models and all those models fit the data perfectly, then you can't determine the probability as I did.

So, if you ask what is the probability a God that is NOT omnipotent, but close to omnipotent exists, no one can show the probability of that is zero or any other number, since there are an infinite number of such models, and infinity/infinity is undefined (meaning it could be any number).

To the next question about probabilities changing based on which "mind" you're looking at, the answer is no. If a model you have fits 97% of the data points, and no other information is given, then that's the probability it will fit the next data point. Of course, as more information is added, the probability can change, but it does NOT change based on the observer (for the kinds of questions we're asking).

And to the question about the weight assigned to scientific methodology, the answer is that it does have greater utility than non-scientific methodology in cases where science can actually determine the accuracy of the model because any non-random method of decision-making is better (meaning the choice it makes has higher utility based on that individual's utility function) with known probabilities for each possible choice you could make.

In religion and philosophy, claims are allowed even if there is no known means of testing them. This means we have no idea whether it's better to assume one such idea over another when we have to make such a decision. And we have to make such decisions all the time - every new technology that results from a research and development process exists ONLY because there is information about the accuracy of the model through testing (or mathematical deduction).

So, yes it also should be the preferred method when there are scientific theories one can rely on. Just look around you and note that we wouldn't have almost any of the technology (medical, military, industrial, etc..) we have today without preferring scientific methodology over non-scientific ones. I mean you ever hear the military ask a priest or a philosopher to design a quieter submarine??

And to the next paragraph, my problem lies with not using the best known method available, that's all. If we can test how old the Earth is, then don't claim it is only a few thousand years old unless your theory makes more accurate predictions than all other competing theories.

And in cases where no science exists, then one shouldn't be dishonest about the probability that claim is true. The probability God exists is zero percent. It's certainly possible it doesn't. But, there are many out there that think there is NO possible way they could be wrong saying God exists, and that's just dishonest. That's what I don't like: not using the best available methodology.

Oh, and this is about what is true or not, not what feels better (or whether you think that's beautiful).

Outstanding response, much appreciated.

Well Faith alone, like prayers, does not make it so. To me Faith and Hope go hand in hand, one is not more limiting, or empowering, then the other.

Sorry, "Chardonnaytion" Process, was my feeble attempt at levity. It would be defined (although true its a made up word) as the Scientific formula for explaining how one goes about turning water into wine.

More to the point, do not get me wrong, I do not dispute the value of the SCIENCES and there profound impact on our growth as humans. Truely we would be LOST or more LOST without them.

You beautifully stated my current thinking when it comes to often viewed "battle" between the SCIENCES vs. RELIGON issue:


So, if you ask what is the probability a God that is NOT omnipotent, but close to omnipotent exists, no one can show the probability of that is zero or any other number, since there are an infinite number of such models, and infinity/infinity is undefined (meaning it could be any number).

I think the belief in a higher power, a CREATOR, "omnipotent" or "close to omnipotent" it doesnt matter to me, is exactly this infinity/infinity question...no one can show the probability that it is in fact a zero chance. Those that choose to believe, do so for a variety of non-scientific reasons...perhaps because there is no scientific explanation!

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 06:15 PM
Every fact in science is a claim for which the probability it is true is so high there's no practical reason to doubt it. That doesn't mean it won't be shown not to be a fact in the future.

True, and that doesnt mean that ones beliefs are not indeed facts....often it takes the same future to help define it for others too.

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 06:19 PM
We can't touch or see gamma rays, but it's stupid not to think they exist. So doubting Thomas is behind the times.

Oh, and many things in logic/mathematics are true but can't be seen or touched.

Again, true, but Thomas was speaking specifically of events of a spirtual kind, where ordinarily the ability to see and touch is never granted. His desire/demand to only believe once and only if he was able to see, and touch for himself.

Ironically, following that, he started his ministry and asked those who he addressed to believe based on his personal experience.

So many are not as fortunate to have such a demand granted.

It is said, "Blessed be those who never see, never touch, but still believe". Perhaps the same can be said from those of the SCIENCES asking those of faith to see it their way.

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 06:35 PM
Let me ask this question:

If the SCIENCES were to announce that evidence and proof to their satisfaction confirmed GOD exists.

Would it change anything?
Would it make the world a better or worse place?
Would it lead more toward the path recommended by GOD?
Would it lead less?

These are all unknowns of course, all assumptions to opine about, but I ponder, what would the results be if SCIENCE and RELIGON joined?

I often question, exactly how far about are SCIENCE and RELIGON really?

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 06:36 PM
Let me ask this question:

If the SCIENCES were to announce that evidence and proof to their satisfaction confirmed GOD exists.

Would it change anything?
Would it make the world a better or worse place?
Would it lead more toward the path recommended by GOD?
Would it lead less?

These are all unknowns of course, all assumptions to opine about, but I ponder, what would the results be if SCIENCE and RELIGION joined?

I often question, exactly how far apart are SCIENCE and RELIGION really?

For me, I appreciate and do not take lightly the efforts of both to explain the un-explained to date.

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 07:17 PM
I think the belief in a higher power, a CREATOR, "omnipotent" or "close to omnipotent" it doesnt matter to me, is exactly this infinity/infinity question...no one can show the probability that it is in fact a zero chance. Those that choose to believe, do so for a variety of non-scientific reasons...perhaps because there is no scientific explanation!

For a creator that is omnipotent I showed the probability is zero. So, you're going to have to explicitly go with the assumption God didn't create everything or God isn't omnipotent before the solution becomes undefined.

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 07:23 PM
True, and that doesnt mean that ones beliefs are not indeed facts....often it takes the same future to help define it for others too.

Right, and the great thing about science is that it speaks in probabilities, which first of all implies we don't know the claim is for certain true, and second of all gives you information about how likely it is the claim is correct.

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 07:26 PM
Again, true, but Thomas was speaking specifically of events of a spirtual kind, where ordinarily the ability to see and touch is never granted. His desire/demand to only believe once and only if he was able to see, and touch for himself.

Ironically, following that, he started his ministry and asked those who he addressed to believe based on his personal experience.

So many are not as fortunate to have such a demand granted.

It is said, "Blessed be those who never see, never touch, but still believe". Perhaps the same can be said from those of the SCIENCES asking those of faith to see it their way.

Well, instead of wishing blessings, I think the scientific community would wish education on those that don't understand science.

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 07:33 PM
Let me ask this question:

If the SCIENCES were to announce that evidence and proof to their satisfaction confirmed GOD exists.

Would it change anything?
Would it make the world a better or worse place?
Would it lead more toward the path recommended by GOD?
Would it lead less?

These are all unknowns of course, all assumptions to opine about, but I ponder, what would the results be if SCIENCE and RELIGION joined?

I often question, exactly how far apart are SCIENCE and RELIGION really?

For me, I appreciate and do not take lightly the efforts of both to explain the un-explained to date.

As you said, if science found proof of God, what would change are all unknowns. I'll just leave it at that without guessing.

Now, science and religion can't really join though, since science can NEVER accept something on faith alone whereas religion can. And science has already disproven many things many religions claim are true. I mean you hear of many Biblical literalists (not all) claim the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Radiocarbon dating can disprove that. And of course, light from distant galaxies took sometimes billions of years to get here.

So, science and religion are far apart in the sense that one requires evidence whereas the other does not, one requires one to test theories and determine how accurate they are whereas the other does not, and one requires faith in claims shown not to be accurate through such tests whereas science shows its willingness to reject claims if further evidence emerges.

Really, the biggest difference lies in honesty about what one knows and what one doesn't know. When someone says there is NO doubt they could be wrong that God exists, that's just simply being dishonest. I mean every human being makes mistakes, and there's no absolute fool-proof way to ensure one isn't making an error (or that we all are). But, even after saying that, you still see people insist there is NO doubt they could be wrong God exists. That lack of honesty is a BIG difference IMO.

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 07:34 PM
For a creator that is omnipotent I showed the probability is zero. So, you're going to have to explicitly go with the assumption God didn't create everything or God isn't omnipotent before the solution becomes undefined.

I saw where you stated:


Since there is only one such unique model out of an infinite number, the probability it is accurate is 1/infinity = zero.

However, I struggle to comprehend how the possibility that there is indeed 1 model out of an infinite number to show GOD exists and is omnipotent leaves the probability at absolute zero.

Is it truely and fairly labled absolute zero for if there is a GOD, the chance that GOD is also omnipotent is absolute zero?

Is that more of an issue of possibility vs. probability?

(As an aside that reminds me of the classic joke of the man visiting the doctor and getting bad news, then dressing up in a tux, when asked by his wife why the tux, he states "well if I's going to be impotent, I's might as well dress impotent".)

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 07:47 PM
I saw where you stated:



However, I struggle to comprehend how the possibility that there is indeed 1 model out of an infinite number to show GOD exists and is omnipotent leaves the probability at absolute zero.

Is it truely and fairly labled absolute zero for if there is a GOD, the chance that GOD is also omnipotent is absolute zero?

Is that more of an issue of possibility vs. probability?

(As an aside that reminds me of the classic joke of the man visiting the doctor and getting bad news, then dressing up in a tux, when asked by his wife why the tux, he states "well if I's going to be impotent, I's might as well dress impotent".)

The probability of randomly choosing Q elements out of a set of N elements is defined as Q/N.

If you have NO way of distinguishing the veracity of one model from another, because they ALL fit the data perfectly, then the probability of each such possibility is 1/N.

In mathematics, any finite number divided by an infinite number is zero. That doesn't mean it can't occur. The probability of choosing the number 15 from the set of all integers is zero, but it can occur. Same with God.

And the question of the model including an omnipotent God just reduces to showing any such model is unique.

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 07:51 PM
As you said, if science found proof of God, what would change are all unknowns. I'll just leave it at that without guessing.

Now, science and religion can't really join though, since science can NEVER accept something on faith alone whereas religion can. And science has already disproven many things many religions claim are true. I mean you hear of many Biblical literalists (not all) claim the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Radiocarbon dating can disprove that. And of course, light from distant galaxies took sometimes billions of years to get here.

So, science and religion are far apart in the sense that one requires evidence whereas the other does not, one requires one to test theories and determine how accurate they are whereas the other does not, and one requires faith in claims shown not to be accurate through such tests whereas science shows its willingness to reject claims if further evidence emerges.

Really, the biggest difference lies in honesty about what one knows and what one doesn't know. When someone says there is NO doubt they could be wrong that God exists, that's just simply being dishonest. I mean every human being makes mistakes, and there's no absolute fool-proof way to ensure one isn't making an error (or that we all are). But, even after saying that, you still see people insist there is NO doubt they could be wrong God exists. That lack of honesty is a BIG difference IMO.

Project for me the idea, that in the future, the SCIENCES catch-up and help explain and show evidence/proof/facts that were to that point only believes of faith.

And lets presume, that as the lynch-pin to RELIGION, the proof was not on any other issue other than GOD exists. Not how long the earth has been here, not walking on water, not water into wine....none of that, just that GOD exists, and to expand, that in fact, that 1 in a infinity chance occurs and GOD is omnipotent.

To me, the SCIENCES are closer to the ideals of RELIGION, and beliefs than some care to realize or accept.

RELIGION:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

If you change beliefs to a body of facts or truths how different is this viewpoint from what you yearn for as a scientific scholar? Superhuman does not necessarily mean GOD.

Again, it makes me ponder, if SCIENCE and RELIGION closed its ranks, how different would our existence be? How different would our future be?

Not sure if its strictly honesty about only what one knows and doesnt know, for I feel the same about honesty to accept and appreciate what one has YET to know!

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 07:52 PM
The probability of randomly choosing Q elements out of a set of N elements is defined as Q/N.

If you have NO way of distinguishing the veracity of one model from another, because they ALL fit the data perfectly, then the probability of each such possibility is 1/N.

In mathematics, any finite number divided by an infinite number is zero. That doesn't mean it can't occur. The probability of choosing the number 15 from the set of all integers is zero, but it can occur. Same with God.

And the question of the model including an omnipotent God just reduces to showing any such model is unique.

I understand more clearly now, I thank you for that.

Rafiki
07-12-2007, 09:30 PM
Don't be so ****ing condescending Rafiki. I was saying that because until you pointed out to me that you follow the Rafiki Dictionary and not the one everyone else uses, and I had explained what faith is, I thought you missed it. I also answered your questions and you kept asking them. That tends to make one think you didn't read the post thoroughly.

:lol: I'm sorry but I found this paragraph extremely humorous. I wasn't trying to be condescending, dude. You just kept asking me if I read what you wrote or read the definition as if you were incredulously questioning my comprehension level.

Rafiki
07-12-2007, 09:52 PM
Just one thing:

Defining faith as in the bolded part above leads to a bit of a contradiction. You're assuming there could come a time where something you have faith in could be proven or disproven. That of course means you are NOT absolutely certain what you have faith in is true. I mean if you are absolutely certain (with no if's, and's or but's), then you can't allow for the possibility it could be disproven at some later time.

Nonsense, I can be absolutely certain if I wish to be so. Faith is to be devoid of doubt, therefore regardless of the "conditional" status of your certainty it does not change the fact that you were absolutely certain at the time in question.

I won't disagree that it's not scientific. I'm not thoroughly orthodox in that way nor in the religious way. I do however believe that one persons conviction can and does alter the universe in which he dwells.

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 10:20 PM
Project for me the idea, that in the future, the SCIENCES catch-up and help explain and show evidence/proof/facts that were to that point only believes of faith.

And lets presume, that as the lynch-pin to RELIGION, the proof was not on any other issue other than GOD exists. Not how long the earth has been here, not walking on water, not water into wine....none of that, just that GOD exists, and to expand, that in fact, that 1 in a infinity chance occurs and GOD is omnipotent.

To me, the SCIENCES are closer to the ideals of RELIGION, and beliefs than some care to realize or accept.

RELIGION:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

If you change beliefs to a body of facts or truths how different is this viewpoint from what you yearn for as a scientific scholar? Superhuman does not necessarily mean GOD.

Again, it makes me ponder, if SCIENCE and RELIGION closed its ranks, how different would our existence be? How different would our future be?

Not sure if its strictly honesty about only what one knows and doesnt know, for I feel the same about honesty to accept and appreciate what one has YET to know!


Well, sure if you just restrict it to the question of whether God exists, it's possible science may someday show it does (or doesn't).

But that's one idea, not religion, which is an entire doctrine, or as your definitions says, is a SET of beliefs. Can you name me one religion that claims God exists but nothing else? No, right?

So, science proving God exists wouldn't be a merging of science and religion. It would just be one case where what people believed prior to science turned out to be correct, nothing more. So, I don't see how science and religion could merge. I only see the possibility of certain things people believe in today just happen to be supported by future scientific evidence (or not).

And again, the difference between science and religion doesn't lie in what set of beliefs individuals have. The difference lies in the methodology. In science, what is accepted is determined by results of testing, not faith.

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 10:23 PM
Nonsense, I can be absolutely certain if I wish to be so. Faith is to be devoid of doubt, therefore regardless of the "conditional" status of your certainty it does not change the fact that you were absolutely certain at the time in question.

I won't disagree that it's not scientific. I'm not thoroughly orthodox in that way nor in the religious way. I do however believe that one persons conviction can and does alter the universe in which he dwells.

Yeah, but what you say isn't logical. If you assume that at some point in the future, something you believe in could be proven OR disproven, then logically speaking you have just made the implication it's possible you could be wrong, which is proof of doubt.

This has nothing to do with your feelings on the matter (how certain you feel), just logic. So, really what you said was nonsense :tongue:

shanem40
07-12-2007, 10:49 PM
You mean condescending ? If so, no.
I'm not condescending at all. You'd see it my way too if you were a believer in God. I wouldn't expect you to understand where I'm coming from. This is between me and the science guy. I challenge him (and all scientists) to come up with an answer as to how everything came into existence. Instead of saying "prove God exists", how about they come up with a better reason as to how it all happened ? Of course, since they beg for proof, I will be asking for the same.


You are defending a person who disclaims something he himself admits to knowing nothing about.but sciencets have logical theories your guys belife in the bible in no diffrent thent a child beliving in santa

BigDogsHunt
07-12-2007, 10:49 PM
Well, sure if you just restrict it to the question of whether God exists, it's possible science may someday show it does (or doesn't).

But that's one idea, not religion, which is an entire doctrine, or as your definitions says, is a SET of beliefs. Can you name me one religion that claims God exists but nothing else? No, right?

So, science proving God exists wouldn't be a merging of science and religion. It would just be one case where what people believed prior to science turned out to be correct, nothing more. So, I don't see how science and religion could merge. I only see the possibility of certain things people believe in today just happen to be supported by future scientific evidence (or not).

And again, the difference between science and religion doesn't lie in what set of beliefs individuals have. The difference lies in the methodology. In science, what is accepted is determined by results of testing, not faith.

Certainly not to my knowledge, but its viewed as the CORE DOGMA to each of them (GOD or GODs) and over the millenium they have developed additonal issues and items that as you have discussed prior, create known conflicts with proven scientific facts. But at the CORE the existance of GOD is the job 1. Ya, know the whole BEGAT issue.

If the SCIENCES were in fact able to confirm for all the world, that GOD exists, perhaps I overestimate the "merging" of science and religion. Yes, it would still be seperate over other issues within each subset, and you might even have a new battle on your hands of "one" RELIGION piting your evidence against "another" RELIGION and so on. But how unique it would be to have the "coming together" over this CORE item.

Yes, the difference does lie in the methodology, the SCIENCES need to determine the results by testing....and RELIGION can go on faith alone.

I can accept that some humans have the ability to go it on faith alone, I can respect that the SCIENCES demand evidence.

Not that either group is seeking or expecting pity, but I dont know who I feel more sorry for.

ckb2001
07-12-2007, 11:25 PM
Certainly not to my knowledge, but its viewed as the CORE DOGMA to each of them (GOD or GODs) and over the millenium they have developed additonal issues and items that as you have discussed prior, create known conflicts with proven scientific facts. But at the CORE the existance of GOD is the job 1. Ya, know the whole BEGAT issue.

If the SCIENCES were in fact able to confirm for all the world, that GOD exists, perhaps I overestimate the "merging" of science and religion. Yes, it would still be seperate over other issues within each subset, and you might even have a new battle on your hands of "one" RELIGION piting your evidence against "another" RELIGION and so on. But how unique it would be to have the "coming together" over this CORE item.

Yes, the difference does lie in the methodology, the SCIENCES need to determine the results by testing....and RELIGION can go on faith alone.

I can accept that some humans have the ability to go it on faith alone, I can respect that the SCIENCES demand evidence.

Not that either group is seeking or expecting pity, but I dont know who I feel more sorry for.


Well, OK, if you really just want to talk about the one idea of God and forget the others, I think the next problem would lie in what science finds out about what God wants versus what the religions think God wants.

I think it's very very unlikely that what God wants would just turn out to be what any particular religion thinks it wants even IF you assume scientific evidence for God is found.

Anyway, keep in mind this is all soooo unlikely it's probably not worth wasting much time thinking about it.

Personally, I think it's more likely science will show this type of question is undecidable - that means nature is built in such a way we can't solve this problem. But, who knows.

Pagan
07-12-2007, 11:45 PM
:lol: I'm sorry but I found this paragraph extremely humorous. I wasn't trying to be condescending, dude. You just kept asking me if I read what you wrote or read the definition as if you were incredulously questioning my comprehension level.
Then we've both misunderstood each other's intentions Raf. :wink:

My bad for thinking you were being condescending.

BigDogsHunt
07-13-2007, 05:31 PM
I think it's very very unlikely that what God wants would just turn out to be what any particular religion thinks it wants even IF you assume scientific evidence for God is found.

Very true, reminds me of this quote:

"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't. -- Jules Renard"

Which lead to me finding this site:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Some entertaining/interesting reading (of course from a Skeptic's (ahem...SCIENTISTS)...viewpoint).

LouPhinFan
07-13-2007, 07:07 PM
Here is a link to a page on this very subject. Its apart of my church's, Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, website. Pay close attention to #6 and #7.

http://www.southeastchristian.org/sqa/universe.aspx?id=202

Anyone can make arguments for and against God's existance. It is your free will that makes the decision. As matter of fact I dare say that is the one and only thing that holds power over God-my free will. God is not going to force you to believe or worship him. You have to make that decision on your own. Proof that God exists is irrelevant.

To paraphrase #7, believing in God and being wrong = no harm, not believing in God and being wrong = much harm.

ckb2001
07-13-2007, 07:35 PM
Here is a link to a page on this very subject. Its apart of my church's, Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, website. Pay close attention to #6 and #7.

http://www.southeastchristian.org/sqa/universe.aspx?id=202

Anyone can make arguments for and against God's existance. It is your free will that makes the decision. As matter of fact I dare say that is the one and only thing that holds power over God-my free will. God is not going to force you to believe or worship him. You have to make that decision on your own. Proof that God exists is irrelevant.

To paraphrase #7, believing in God and being wrong = no harm, not believing in God and being wrong = much harm.

Regarding #7 with Pascal's claim, note that he never actually provided a mathematical argument of the sort. And it's certainly NOT logical to bet that God exists. I mean the probability God exists is zero, so it would be stupid for an optimal decision-maker to bet on God's existence. Of course, humans don't behave optimally even when they can deduce how an optimal decision-maker would behave.

Regarding #6, no one has as of yet demonstrated it's even meaningful to ask "what is the purpose of life?". You can't just concatenate two words that individually have meaning and then just suppose their concatenation has meaning. That's essentially what people are doing when they ask that question. Until you can show that nature inherently has meaning and that meaning is NOT determined by the observer (so it depends and is determined by the observer), the question doesn't even make sense.


Of course, some of those other things said are just pure laughable. Consider #4 and the magnitude of space. What does your inability to comprehend something have to do with the likelihood God exists? NOTHING.

Or look at #3 where they assume there exist phenomena that are eternal. I don't get this. For #4 they have no problem using science but for #3 they just completely disregard science? There's no evidence of an infinite universe or infinite ANYTHING! Our concepts of infinity are something else - abstract concepts - that so far haven't been shown to have any known physical representation.

And for #2 they also completely disregard science. Quantum mechanics already allows for things to exist with an inherent probability and for particles to emerge from "nothingness". Great, so they think their ignorance and faith is more than sufficient to disprove the most accurate scientific theory ever, and all without ANY evidence! That's arrogance of the highest magnitude (not that we should be surprised).

For #1, they're right that science can't answer such questions. The strength of science is that it won't tell you it has an answer to something it can't show is true!! Religion.. oh yeah, make something up and tell people believe and don't question - just have faith. It's just a crutch for people who can't live with uncertainty.

And #5 is just intelligent design. No scientific evidence supporting it of course. It's totally hypocritical for that link/church to simply pick some off-hand quotes from scientists where NO scientific evidence exists to support it but totally deny and disregard any science that shows they're talking bull. I mean before you can claim something is "designed", you need a way of testing for that, and NO such test exists. However, you can test to see whether something could have arisen without an intelligent designer, and evolutionary theories rest on known mechanisms for such change. And of course they're wrong with the "there is no other way" bull. I mean there are an infinite number of distinct ways.



Having said all that, one more note: most likely the next religious idea to fall in science is the notion of free will. While science is nowhere near ready to even seriously tackle questions such as what is consciousness or how nature came into existence, brain science is just on the verge of doing away with free will.

First of all, we can see the actual mechanisms that lead to all your behavior, and they satisfy the same laws of nature as everything else. Seen from a macroscopic point of view, it's deterministic (sufficient for most theories in biology) and in principle they are probabilistic. Really, all that remains is to explain why we have the experience of "free will". It's almost certain in neuroscience we don't have it though - just look at the brain function and that becomes almost certain.

BigDogsHunt
07-13-2007, 07:41 PM
CKB, of all you wrote, and again, its wonderful from your persepective and quite insightful...this make me raise an eyebrow:


It's {RELIGION/FAITH/GOD} just a crutch for people who can't live with uncertainty.


I know many that say the same for the SCIENCES.

Frankly, if feels that those of the religious persuasion have less of a problem living with uncertainty than those from the SCIENCES do.

ckb2001
07-13-2007, 07:48 PM
CKB, of all you wrote, and again, its wonderful from your persepective and quite insightful...this make me raise an eyebrow:



I know many that say the same for the SCIENCES.

Frankly, if feels that those of the religious persuasion have less of a problem living with uncertainty than I feel those from the SCIENCES do.


???????????

One of the most ignorant claims I've seen!!

Look, half of physics depends on a theory called quantum mechanics that showed nature is inherently probabilistic! Science was the doctrine that actually found evidence Nature is NOT deterministic. How can you claim physicists can't live with uncertainty when they developed a theory (the most accurate ever) that showed that all theories that do NOT assume there is inherent uncertainty in Nature can't be correct?

And for the rest of the sciences, ever heard of statistics?

Geez, practically every study that makes statistical inferences from data ASSUMES uncertainty in their predictions and in their inferences.

And it's quite obvious that when scientists don't claim they know the answer to something and just say "we don't know" instead of "just take this on faith alone", they are giving you clear evidence living with uncertainty (where it exists) is preferred.

No, science is NOT a crutch for people who can't live with uncertainty. It is a crutch for people who CAN live with uncertainty!!

Den54
07-13-2007, 07:59 PM
Here is a link to a page on this very subject. Its apart of my church's, Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, website. Pay close attention to #6 and #7.

http://www.southeastchristian.org/sqa/universe.aspx?id=202

Anyone can make arguments for and against God's existance. It is your free will that makes the decision. As matter of fact I dare say that is the one and only thing that holds power over God-my free will. God is not going to force you to believe or worship him. You have to make that decision on your own. Proof that God exists is irrelevant.

To paraphrase #7, believing in God and being wrong = no harm, not believing in God and being wrong = much harm.




Fear based religeous mongering at its finest.

BigDogsHunt
07-13-2007, 08:08 PM
No, science is NOT a crutch for people who can't live with uncertainty. It is a crutch for people who CAN live with uncertainty!!

Now, now, now....IGNORANCE is a harsh word!

:D SCIENCE is a crutch for people who CAN live with uncertainty!

From my humble perspective, those of FAITH have no concern over what is deemed uncertain by man.

The SCIENCES refuse to accept anything that is uncertain without attempting to prove its certainity. Evidence must be found, tested, proved, before one accepts what was uncertain. The crutch is the SCIENCE to rest upon to ease the fear of the unknown, the fear of what is perhaps more powerful than anything SCIENCE has discovered.

FAITH is the ability to accept the uncertain - without fear - no crutch needed - no material/physical proof requried.

And as you have explained, a probability of zero does not mean definitively that GOD does not exist.

I do agree, that as you state, those of FAITH fail to acknowledge beyond a reasonable doubt the chance that GOD does not exist. But I cant define this inability as a CRUTCH.

ckb2001
07-13-2007, 08:33 PM
Now, now, now....IGNORANCE is a harsh word!

:D SCIENCE is a crutch for people who CAN live with uncertainty!

From my humble perspective, those of FAITH have no concern over what is deemed uncertain by man.

The SCIENCES refuse to accept anything that is uncertain without attempting to prove its certainity. Evidence must be found, tested, proved, before one accepts what was uncertain. The crutch is the SCIENCE to rest upon to ease the fear of the unknown, the fear of what is perhaps more powerful than anything SCIENCE has discovered.

FAITH is the ability to accept the uncertain - without fear - no crutch needed - no material/physical proof requried.

And as you have explained, a probability of zero does not mean definitively that GOD does not exist.

I do agree, that as you state, those of FAITH fail to acknowledge beyond a reasonable doubt the chance that GOD does not exist. But I cant define this inability as a CRUTCH.



Point by point then:

1) You say those of faith have no concern over what is deemed uncertain by man. That's OBVIOUSLY false. Why would they concern themselves so much with scientific theories that cast DOUBT on their claims?? No, they can't accept there is such an uncertainty - they can't live with it.

2) You say science refuses to accept anything is uncertain until the degree of certainty is known. That's OBVIOUSLY false. Science says we don't know to everything where we CANNOT determine the degree of certainty!! For example, claiming something "God-like" exists has an undefined probability of being correct, since you're looking at an infinite number of possible such models out of an infinite number and that fraction is undefined. So, clearly science accepts uncertainty even when it can't determine the degree of certainty!

3) Science is not here to ease the fear of the unknown. I've never heard any scientist have such a motivation (though it may exist somewhere). Point is, most reasons scientists have for advancing our knowledge have to do with recognition (fame), satisfying curiosity, and in some cases money. But, I've never heard scientists have a motivation of doing science to ease the fear of the unknown. I mean after every new discovery, new unknowns and new questions emerge. So, in practice the unknown is something scientists REVEL in!! Without such uncertainty and unknowns, science wouldn't exist!! Religion of course revels in certainty for comparison.

4) You say faith is the ability to accept something uncertain. You have to distinguish between "faith" and "religious faith". I mean even science requires faith - each time a research makes assumptions in his theory he has faith previous researchers did their job in weeding out any flaws. But, that's not religious faith, where it is precisely sold as a way to eliminate the uncertainty. In fact, they teach you NOT to question the existence of God or in some denominations the veracity of the Bible, Koran, etc.. No, it's not a means of living with uncertainty - it's a means of trying to convince oneself there IS NO uncertainty!!

And that's the reason the use of the word "crutch" is appropriate. If they could live WITH the uncertainty of not knowing how we came into existence (note that link above stated such questions under #1), then that wouldn't be a motivation for believing in a religion. So, yes it is a crutch for those that can't live with such uncertainties. But, clearly science is NOT.

LouPhinFan
07-13-2007, 08:47 PM
Regarding #7 with Pascal's claim, note that he never actually provided a mathematical argument of the sort. And it's certainly NOT logical to bet that God exists. I mean the probability God exists is zero, so it would be stupid for an optimal decision-maker to bet on God's existence. Of course, humans don't behave optimally even when they can deduce how an optimal decision-maker would behave.

Regarding #6, no one has as of yet demonstrated it's even meaningful to ask "what is the purpose of life?". You can't just concatenate two words that individually have meaning and then just suppose their concatenation has meaning. That's essentially what people are doing when they ask that question. Until you can show that nature inherently has meaning and that meaning is NOT determined by the observer (so it depends and is determined by the observer), the question doesn't even make sense.



You missed the point. It doesn't matter what the odds are that God exists. Nil, 3 - 1, 40 - 1, it doesn't matter. It sounds like you're a scientist, but not a gambler. If you place your bet that God exists and it turns out God doesn't, then you've lost nothing. So its like placing a $5 bet on a horse that scratches from the race, you neither win nor lose, you get your money back, in other words you simple cease to exist. However if you don't place your bet on God, and it turns out he exists, you lose your soul (conciousness) and miss out on heaven. Or in the horse racing analogy, you lose your $5 and miss out on the pay-out from the winning horse.


So you're telling me, as a scientist, you haven't asked yourself "Why are we here?" and that there's no reason to ask that question at this time? I find that amazing. And also somewhat of a cop-out answer. And if you do truly believe that, then I have my doubts that you're human.:tongue:




Of course, some of those other things said are just pure laughable. Consider #4 and the magnitude of space. What does your inability to comprehend something have to do with the likelihood God exists? NOTHING.

Or look at #3 where they assume there exist phenomena that are eternal. I don't get this. For #4 they have no problem using science but for #3 they just completely disregard science? There's no evidence of an infinite universe or infinite ANYTHING! Our concepts of infinity are something else - abstract concepts - that so far haven't been shown to have any known physical representation.


Well its one of the weaker arguments, I'll give you that. But what the fact of the matter is, science hasn't given me anything else to prove how it all works, so for now I'll just stick with the whole "God" thing.:D


Ok, then, if it makes you feel better, exchange the word infinite with the phrase "almost infinite". Does it make you feel warm and fuzzy now?:) Ok, so the Universe may or may not be infinite (along with all the other possible universes toyed around with by String Theory and such), but its almost uncomprehensibly big. Again, I'll stick with the "God" thing.




And for #2 they also completely disregard science. Quantum mechanics already allows for things to exist with an inherent probability and for particles to emerge from "nothingness". Great, so they think their ignorance and faith is more than sufficient to disprove the most accurate scientific theory ever, and all without ANY evidence! That's arrogance of the highest magnitude (not that we should be surprised).

For #1, they're right that science can't answer such questions. The strength of science is that it won't tell you it has an answer to something it can't show is true!! Religion.. oh yeah, make something up and tell people believe and don't question - just have faith. It's just a crutch for people who can't live with uncertainty.

And #5 is just intelligent design. No scientific evidence supporting it of course. It's totally hypocritical for that link/church to simply pick some off-hand quotes from scientists where NO scientific evidence exists to support it but totally deny and disregard any science that shows they're talking bull. I mean before you can claim something is "designed", you need a way of testing for that, and NO such test exists. However, you can test to see whether something could have arisen without an intelligent designer, and evolutionary theories rest on known mechanisms for such change. And of course they're wrong with the "there is no other way" bull. I mean there are an infinite number of distinct ways.


#2 - No the only arrogance is your statement. Because I have faith that God exists doesn't make me arrogant or ignorant. I just have different thoughts than you do. So something came from nothing according to your "most accurate THEORY ever". From where did the particle come? And you think me believing in God is silly, rrriiiggghhhttt...

#1 - I don't follow your arguments. I don't think those questions are "True/False" questions. Multiple choice maybe... You'll have to explain that one a little further for me. The second half of your statement is very condescending and arrogant. I'll let that one go, you are a scientist after all.:D

#5 - Its also a pretty weak argument and I see where you're coming from, so I'll let you have that point.:wink: Its one of those "faith" things, you wouldn't understand.



Having said all that, one more note: most likely the next religious idea to fall in science is the notion of free will. While science is nowhere near ready to even seriously tackle questions such as what is consciousness or how nature came into existence, brain science is just on the verge of doing away with free will.

First of all, we can see the actual mechanisms that lead to all your behavior, and they satisfy the same laws of nature as everything else. Seen from a macroscopic point of view, it's deterministic (sufficient for most theories in biology) and in principle they are probabilistic. Really, all that remains is to explain why we have the experience of "free will". It's almost certain in neuroscience we don't have it though - just look at the brain function and that becomes almost certain.

Ok Deep Blue, go back to your chess game...sorry that was a cheap shot, it just kinda came out.

So the fact that I wore a blue shirt today rather than a red one was already determined by my brain function before I even opened up my closet this morning and asked my self "What shirt should I wear today"? You'll have to explain that one further to me, my "crutch weilding, uncertainty hating, wear the blue one" brain doesn't get that one.:err:

BigDogsHunt
07-13-2007, 09:02 PM
And that's the reason the use of the word "crutch" is appropriate. If they could live WITH the uncertainty of not knowing how we came into existence (note that link above stated such questions under #1), then that wouldn't be a motivation for believing in a religion. So, yes it is a crutch for those that can't live with such uncertainties. But, clearly science is NOT.

We have agreed however, that those of RELIGIOUS FAITH, have no concern over what the SCIENCES deem uncertain. Those of RELIGIOUS FAITH are certain, and therefore do not require the SCIENCES to show them physical proof.

SCIENCE cannot prove the possibility is - beyond a shadow of a doubt - at absolute zero that GOD does or does not exist - you yourself stated that.

What you struggle with is, how those of FAITH have no question in their mind/body/soul that GOD does exist (sarcastically speaking = SCIENCE be damned!).

The motivation is not to believe in GOD because of the uncertainity of not knowing how we came into existence. People of FAITH believe in GOD for the very certainity of knowing how we came into existence.

A futile act is expecting FAITH to accept/acknowledge the opposite of what they have FAITH in.

ckb2001
07-13-2007, 09:23 PM
We have agreed however, that those of RELIGIOUS FAITH, have no concern over what the SCIENCES deem uncertain. Those of RELIGIOUS FAITH are certain, and therefore do not require the SCIENCES to show them physical proof.

No, we have NOT agreed on this. I told you that specifically above. Religions DO concern themselves with what science claims. They don't like it when science says their claims are simply wrong. I mean why have this Creationism/ID vs Evolution debate if the religious side weren't concerned with what the sciences deem uncertain??

No, they want ALL of us to have that faith, so they certainly DO concern themselves with what science deems uncertain.



The motivation is not to believe in GOD because of the uncertainity of not knowing how we came into existence. People of FAITH believe in GOD for the very certainity of knowing how we came into existence.


You don't speak for all people who believe in God.

Just look at that link I responded to. The very first reason mentioned was this:

QUOTE:
"1. I believe in God because there are too many unanswered questions without God."
-------------------

So sure it has to do with uncertainty, at least for many people.

BigDogsHunt
07-13-2007, 09:58 PM
Its ok, I stand corrected, we disagree on what people of FAITH concern themselves with regarding the SCIENCES during ones existence.

And as LOUPHINFAN states, SCIENTIFIC statisitical probablities are not enough to eliminate lifes unknown possibilities.

I suspect, until SCIENCE removes all possibilities over the biggest of any RELIGIOUS FAITH-based issues (GOD), - and no I wont hold my breath - people of FAITH are more comfortable and confident with betting on the come (yes, thats both figuratively and spirtually referenced of course).

FAITH in man alone holds little value!

ckb2001
07-13-2007, 09:58 PM
You missed the point. It doesn't matter what the odds are that God exists. Nil, 3 - 1, 40 - 1, it doesn't matter. It sounds like you're a scientist, but not a gambler. If you place your bet that God exists and it turns out God doesn't, then you've lost nothing. So its like placing a $5 bet on a horse that scratches from the race, you neither win nor lose, you get your money back, in other words you simple cease to exist. However if you don't place your bet on God, and it turns out he exists, you lose your soul (conciousness) and miss out on heaven. Or in the horse racing analogy, you lose your $5 and miss out on the pay-out from the winning horse.

Ohh, there's a tremendous cost to society for having too many people ardently believe in something based solely on faith. You do realize that this technology you see around exists precisely because of a doctrine that emphasizes NOT doing what you are suggesting.

Instead of trying to have faith something is true, you do what you can to test for it. Instead of claiming you KNOW something is true when the probability is zero, you admit the probability is what it is, say you don't know the truth (at this point in time), and move on.

The cost is derived from the mentality one has and how effective one is at problem solving as a result.

By the way, religion costs money too. You do realize people pay psychics or astrologers not just for entertainment purposes but also because many believe in them? What if those are totally bogus methods of solving problems or gathering information? Well, that's a monetary cost. Same with religion.



So you're telling me, as a scientist, you haven't asked yourself "Why are we here?" and that there's no reason to ask that question at this time? I find that amazing. And also somewhat of a cop-out answer. And if you do truly believe that, then I have my doubts that you're human.:tongue:

It's certainly no cop-out answer. It's like asking "why did the mineral die". I mean it just makes no sense to put those two words together.

No, my questions are limited to the physical mechanism through which we came into existence. That does NOT mean there was any purpose to it!

In fact, modern physics seems to suggest just the opposite. Why is it that all particles behave in inherently probabilistic ways? It's hard to imagine something being "purposeful" when it's random isn't it?




Well its one of the weaker arguments, I'll give you that. But what the fact of the matter is, science hasn't given me anything else to prove how it all works, so for now I'll just stick with the whole "God" thing.:D

See, this is where we differ. You go with the "God" thing while I simply stop with saying I don't know the answer.



Ok, then, if it makes you feel better, exchange the word infinite with the phrase "almost infinite". Does it make you feel warm and fuzzy now?:) Ok, so the Universe may or may not be infinite (along with all the other possible universes toyed around with by String Theory and such), but its almost uncomprehensibly big. Again, I'll stick with the "God" thing.

"Almost infinite" is finite. The smallest cardinality for an infinite set is Aleph null, and anything less than that is finite.

Of course, saying "finite" instead of infinite destroys the argument that link gave.




#2 - No the only arrogance is your statement. Because I have faith that God exists doesn't make me arrogant or ignorant. I just have different thoughts than you do. So something came from nothing according to your "most accurate THEORY ever". From where did the particle come? And you think me believing in God is silly, rrriiiggghhhttt...

No, the arrogance lies with what was stated in the link. There already is a scientific theory that refutes what that link says. You said this above:

QUOTE:
"science hasn't given me anything else to prove how it all works, so for now I'll just stick with the whole "God" thing"
--------------

Did you really mean that? Because that seems to imply that if science can show you something you wouldn't just stick with an idea based on faith.

Well, that #2 falls into this category. That's simply a statement science can show isn't correct. Quantum Mechanics speaks of particles existing with an inherent probability, neither a "yes" nor a "no". See, you're thinking in ways physicists thought before the 1920's, in terms of "either something exists or it doesn't exist". That was thrown out the door with QM. With QM, something exists with a probability!

And asking "where" it came from isn't quite right either. After the uncertainty principle, it was shown there are inherent limitations on the ability to measure things, and that the "measurement" process itself actually created what you observe (so something that might be a wave collapsing into a particle state once you measure it). So, if you wish, that's "where" it came from.

Oh, and even without going into QM, note that there's no a priori reason the universe isn't infinite, specifically in time, though there's no evidence of this yet.

Point is, #2 is simply a false statement. It is NOT required that something comes from nothingness if you don't have a God. Furthermore, it isn't clear that even WITH a God you'd remove that problem because you have to explain where God came from!!



#1 - I don't follow your arguments. I don't think those questions are "True/False" questions. Multiple choice maybe... You'll have to explain that one a little further for me. The second half of your statement is very condescending and arrogant. I'll let that one go, you are a scientist after all.:D

It's very simple: if science can't answer a question it means we say we can't answer them and that's the end of it. Has nothing to do with the type of the question.

And given the arrogance in that link - simply misrepresenting science and picking whatever fits their predetermined view - my response is certainly appropriate.




Ok Deep Blue, go back to your chess game...sorry that was a cheap shot, it just kinda came out.

So the fact that I wore a blue shirt today rather than a red one was already determined by my brain function before I even opened up my closet this morning and asked my self "What shirt should I wear today"? You'll have to explain that one further to me, my "crutch weilding, uncertainty hating, wear the blue one" brain doesn't get that one.:err:

QM already showed Nature isn't deterministic, so let's make sure of something first. In principle, all these mechanisms in question are inherently probabilistic, not deterministic, but in practice biologists can consider them deterministic because the non-deterministic properties are really only visible at subatomic scales.

Now, even in a deterministic world, some things in PRACTICE (not in principle) may be indeterministic. You've probably heard of chaos theory. That in the end results from not being able to measure something accurately enough leading to a cascade of events where the uncertainty in the system simply grows, making it in practice impossible to predict.

The same thing occurs in the brain. There is a great deal of noise in the brain, so deterministic models of brain function usually aren't as accurate as stochastic models (where one speaks of the probability of something occurring).

I mention all this to explain to you why you can't talk about what color shirt you have on as being predetermined. It's not. Even IF we lived in a deterministic world, the noise in the brain is sufficient to make it near impossible to make such a prediction.

But, that's all not necessary for determining whether we have free will.

The question with free will is can you choose to do something that wasn't the result of causes that laws of physics allow. The answer based on observation of the brain (down to how neural circuits behave) is "no".

So, there is no evidence that the same laws of nature governing the behavior of objects we don't assign free will to (say a computer or bacteria) also aren't valid for the human brain.

No, it seems those same laws sufficiently account for all brain function.

The only thing preventing neuro-science from flatly claiming free will doesn't exist is no one has as of yet been able to explain what creates our experience of free will, though practically no neuro-scientist will say we have it. But, how such a sensation is created or what processing is responsible for that has to be answered before saying we solved that problem.

LouPhinFan
07-14-2007, 12:54 AM
Ohh, there's a tremendous cost to society for having too many people ardently believe in something based solely on faith. You do realize that this technology you see around exists precisely because of a doctrine that emphasizes NOT doing what you are suggesting.


You're going to have to explain this statement or give some type of example.




Instead of trying to have faith something is true, you do what you can to test for it. Instead of claiming you KNOW something is true when the probability is zero, you admit the probability is what it is, say you don't know the truth (at this point in time), and move on.



But the probability that God exists is not zero. Earlier in this thread you stated that there was basically a next to nil chance that God exists, so it might as well be zero. To be honest with you, out of all the gifts I was given, math skills was not one of them, but I do know next to nil is not zero.




The cost is derived from the mentality one has and how effective one is at problem solving as a result.

By the way, religion costs money too. You do realize people pay psychics or astrologers not just for entertainment purposes but also because many believe in them? What if those are totally bogus methods of solving problems or gathering information? Well, that's a monetary cost. Same with religion.



You're kind of getting off on a tangent there, which isn't unusual for a scientist who doesn't believe in God. I made no mention of any kind of monetary cost. I simply made a horse racing analogy, a little bizarre analogy, but just an analogy. If I choose to give my 10% to church and another person decides to give their 10% to an astrologer, then that's our respective choice. How much religion costs has no relevance to this discussion.




It's certainly no cop-out answer. It's like asking "why did the mineral die". I mean it just makes no sense to put those two words together.

No, my questions are limited to the physical mechanism through which we came into existence. That does NOT mean there was any purpose to it!



"Why did the mineral die" is not even close to asking "Why am I (a sentient being) here". Of course it makes no sense to but those two words together, a mineral can't die and has no self-awareness to ask such a question. I probably over simplified that, but my education is in the social sciences, so please forgive me.



In fact, modern physics seems to suggest just the opposite. Why is it that all particles behave in inherently probabilistic ways? It's hard to imagine something being "purposeful" when it's random isn't it?


Again, sorry, but you'll have to help me understand this one. "probabilistic" and "random"...Isn't the more probable something is, the less random it is? So for the sake of argument, say you can measure a particle as being in one position 90% of the time, isn't that less random than a particle that is only in the same spot for 30% of the time? The more probable something is, the more ordered it is...:confused:





See, this is where we differ. You go with the "God" thing while I simply stop with saying I don't know the answer.



Yeah we'll have to agree to disagree.:)




"Almost infinite" is finite. The smallest cardinality for an infinite set is Aleph null, and anything less than that is finite.

Of course, saying "finite" instead of infinite destroys the argument that link gave.



I know the difference between infinite and finite.

No it doesn't "destroy" the arguement. When you speak of the universe, whether its infinite or finite, its still incomphrensibly big. Looking out my window at the dog across the street is no where near the same as looking through a telescope at the Horsehead Nebula or the farthest visible galaxy. There is only one version of infinite, but countless versions of finite. Just like the literalist that believe the Earth was created in six days (which I DO NOT believe), you took that passage too literally.




QUOTE:
"science hasn't given me anything else to prove how it all works, so for now I'll just stick with the whole "God" thing"
--------------

Did you really mean that? Because that seems to imply that if science can show you something you wouldn't just stick with an idea based on faith.



Yeah, if science can prove and I mean PROVE WITHOUT A DOUBT to me that God DOES NOT exist then I would become an atheist. I'm not holding my breath on that one...




Well, that #2 falls into this category. That's simply a statement science can show isn't correct. Quantum Mechanics speaks of particles existing with an inherent probability, neither a "yes" nor a "no". See, you're thinking in ways physicists thought before the 1920's, in terms of "either something exists or it doesn't exist". That was thrown out the door with QM. With QM, something exists with a probability!


So you're saying according to science, there is a chance that the keyboard I'm using right now doesn't exist? If something exists with a probability, then it should stand to reason that there is probability it does NOT exist. I'm sorry, I guess I'm stuck in the 1920's because I'm pretty sure that chicken taquito from Taco Bell I just ate 100% existed, not 99.999999% existed. I can certainly say there is a chance God doesn't exist, but I have faith and believe that he does.




Oh, and even without going into QM, note that there's no a priori reason the universe isn't infinite, specifically in time, though there's no evidence of this yet.



So basically, science hasn't proven the universe is infinite or finite. Correct?




Point is, #2 is simply a false statement. It is NOT required that something comes from nothingness if you don't have a God. Furthermore, it isn't clear that even WITH a God you'd remove that problem because you have to explain where God came from!!


Ah yes, there it is. I remember as a kid (always watching science shows) asking my mom "if God created the universe, where did God come from?". Mom's answer was always "he's always been". I tried forever to wrap my little brain around that one. That's what drives science crazy about deity based religion. They simply cannot stand that there is a supreme being that has always been, always was, and always will be. God has no beginning, middle, or end. God cannot be explained or quantified, but that is what science is trying to do, explain everything. Except you can't explain God. I wish all of those "Unified Field Theorist" good luck...




QM already showed Nature isn't deterministic, so let's make sure of something first. In principle, all these mechanisms in question are inherently probabilistic, not deterministic, but in practice biologists can consider them deterministic because the non-deterministic properties are really only visible at subatomic scales.

Now, even in a deterministic world, some things in PRACTICE (not in principle) may be indeterministic. You've probably heard of chaos theory. That in the end results from not being able to measure something accurately enough leading to a cascade of events where the uncertainty in the system simply grows, making it in practice impossible to predict.

The same thing occurs in the brain. There is a great deal of noise in the brain, so deterministic models of brain function usually aren't as accurate as stochastic models (where one speaks of the probability of something occurring).

I mention all this to explain to you why you can't talk about what color shirt you have on as being predetermined. It's not. Even IF we lived in a deterministic world, the noise in the brain is sufficient to make it near impossible to make such a prediction.

But, that's all not necessary for determining whether we have free will.

The question with free will is can you choose to do something that wasn't the result of causes that laws of physics allow. The answer based on observation of the brain (down to how neural circuits behave) is "no".

So, there is no evidence that the same laws of nature governing the behavior of objects we don't assign free will to (say a computer or bacteria) also aren't valid for the human brain.

No, it seems those same laws sufficiently account for all brain function.

The only thing preventing neuro-science from flatly claiming free will doesn't exist is no one has as of yet been able to explain what creates our experience of free will, though practically no neuro-scientist will say we have it. But, how such a sensation is created or what processing is responsible for that has to be answered before saying we solved that problem.

I'll have to take your word on all of that, as I don't have the knowledge on this particular subject fully grasp what you typed. I apologize, just a limitation on my part.

Scrap
07-14-2007, 10:13 AM
Some of you guys are writing books.

Sponge
07-14-2007, 11:09 AM
It seems to me that science requires a set of assumptions just as religion does, namely that the rules of science apply and that these rules are the definitive answer for our questions. Many religions say the same thing. Arguing the merits of one over the other is not likely to end in agreement as personal decisions based on personal reality have been made already. When you invest your energy and time into living a certain way, based on the rules that you believe are true, it's not common to change those beliefs. Every individual chooses the rules they live by.

ckb2001
07-14-2007, 02:43 PM
You're going to have to explain this statement or give some type of example.

OK, let me give an example where a scientific theory that overturned religious concepts resulted in a revolutionary form of technology AND where the change in thinking among scientists began over a century ago (technology takes a long time to mature, so it's better to look at examples where many decades have passed since the scientific theory became accepted).

In the mid-19th century, it was still the prevalent view among theologians, philosophers AND scientists that life was inherently a different kind of phenomenon than non-life. This belief was called vitalism and specifically it implied that you could NOT create anything that makes up life from non-life (no way to transform inanimate matter into animate matter).

Now, while theologians and philosophers were simply content with arguing over possibilities, scientists set out to devise experiments to test the idea. So, what's the distinction in practice?

OK, first of all keep in mind that it was chemists that believed IN vitalism that set out to do experiments to show you could NOT turn inanimate matter into animate matter. But, contrary to expectations, they actually succeeded in doing so, thus disproving the idea!!

It began with simple examples like creating urea from inorganic components and gradually over time led to being able to create practically all key basic components of living matter from inorganic materials. Really, this gave rise to what we call organic chemistry today.

So, that distinction in doctrines (one that emphasizes testing over faith) led to what we call organic chemistry. And what are the applications of organic chemistry? The list is so long it's hard to properly do justice to it.

But, you can basically throw out the entire revolution in pharmacology that took place from the mid-20th century without the ability to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic material. You can throw out much of what we call biotechnology today too. Point is, though many more discoveries were necessary to allow a multitude of technologies crucial to modern medicine to emerge, probably a majority of them wouldn't be possible without the kind of knowledge (ability to predict reactions) gained by a science of organic chemistry.

The same thing is true for almost every scientific theory. The cost to society of NOT preferring a doctrine based on careful testing of hypothesis as opposed to acceptance of ideas on faith is the loss of many technologies that would otherwise exist. The cost is HUGE!!



But the probability that God exists is not zero. Earlier in this thread you stated that there was basically a next to nil chance that God exists, so it might as well be zero. To be honest with you, out of all the gifts I was given, math skills was not one of them, but I do know next to nil is not zero.

The probability God exists IS zero. I've laid this argument out many times, but in brief, you first note humans have only collected a finite amount of data. Then, you note that there are an infinite number of distinct mathematical functions (that represent models of nature) that could perfectly fit through any finite amount of data. Third, you note that any model assuming an omnipotent God that also created Nature must be unique since you can't add any relations among the variables (the "God" variable and all others) since adding relations implies limiting the omnipotence of "God". Finally, since the model assuming such a God exists is unique, the probability that model is correct is 1/infinity, which equals zero.

That is NOT next to nil, it IS zero. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't possible, just that the probability that model is correct is zero. That of course implies NO optimal decision-maker should ever bet on it.





You're kind of getting off on a tangent there, which isn't unusual for a scientist who doesn't believe in God. I made no mention of any kind of monetary cost. I simply made a horse racing analogy, a little bizarre analogy, but just an analogy. If I choose to give my 10% to church and another person decides to give their 10% to an astrologer, then that's our respective choice. How much religion costs has no relevance to this discussion.

Sure it does. You said there was no cost to believing in God, or in general on things based on faith. And I showed you that's not true.




"Why did the mineral die" is not even close to asking "Why am I (a sentient being) here". Of course it makes no sense to but those two words together, a mineral can't die and has no self-awareness to ask such a question. I probably over simplified that, but my education is in the social sciences, so please forgive me.

I gave you that example so the point was clear. I can give you another example that's harder to discern why it has no meaning if you wish. For example, I could ask "What is the optimal form of government?" That is in and of itself meaningless UNTIL you specify a utility function because "optimal" is only defined once you have a function that tells you how things are valued. Similarly for the original example: "What is the purpose of my life?" is ONLY meaningful once you specify a utility function. But, the way many ask it, they think it has a meaning INDEPENDENT of a utility function (so there is some inherent "true" answer" and that IS meaningless.)



Again, sorry, but you'll have to help me understand this one. "probabilistic" and "random"...Isn't the more probable something is, the less random it is? So for the sake of argument, say you can measure a particle as being in one position 90% of the time, isn't that less random than a particle that is only in the same spot for 30% of the time? The more probable something is, the more ordered it is...:confused:

The measure of "order" is entropy, which is simply a measure of how many bits of you need on average to code something. So, if I ask you to code the infinite sequence: 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,... You only need to specify the repeating sequence and say it repeats forever. But, you can't do that for any process in which the very next number chosen is randomly chosen.

So, even though a random process in its limit may have a distribution (for example, take a random sequence of 0's and 1's but make sure that on average there are twice as many 0's as 1's) it doesn't necessarily mean you can code it in any fewer bits than the total number. So, no, saying there is a greater probability something occurs doesn't mean it's more ordered.

Now, if we actually get into the mathematics of some things, one can show that a Gaussian distribution maximizes entropy, but that's a totally different and more complex story.




I know the difference between infinite and finite.

No it doesn't "destroy" the arguement. When you speak of the universe, whether its infinite or finite, its still incomphrensibly big. Looking out my window at the dog across the street is no where near the same as looking through a telescope at the Horsehead Nebula or the farthest visible galaxy. There is only one version of infinite, but countless versions of finite. Just like the literalist that believe the Earth was created in six days (which I DO NOT believe), you took that passage too literally.

It's obviously not clear the universe is "incomprehensibly big". Speak for yourself, but as long as it's finite, there is nothing difficult to comprehend (about the size).

Either way, it does destroy the argument because that argument said this:

QUOTE:
"Only God can contend with something that big."
-------------

If it's finite, humans have no problem comprehending that - physicists do that all the time. Only if it's shown that the universe is infinite can you maybe argue we can't comprehend it. But, that does NOT suggest God exists at ALL.




Yeah, if science can prove and I mean PROVE WITHOUT A DOUBT to me that God DOES NOT exist then I would become an atheist. I'm not holding my breath on that one...

You're setting an impossible condition. Science NEVER proves ANYTHING without a doubt!! Science speaks in probabilities, even when it doesn't explicitly say so, because there is ALWAYS uncertainty in at least two things: 1) is logic valid?, and 2) have all scientists that examined the proof possibly missed something?

So, you're going to have to be realistic here. If science provides EVIDENCE against the existence of a God (can't do so yet, and remember "evidence" means there is some test that seems to exclude any model assuming God exists as valild), then you should change your thought process.




So you're saying according to science, there is a chance that the keyboard I'm using right now doesn't exist? If something exists with a probability, then it should stand to reason that there is probability it does NOT exist. I'm sorry, I guess I'm stuck in the 1920's because I'm pretty sure that chicken taquito from Taco Bell I just ate 100% existed, not 99.999999% existed. I can certainly say there is a chance God doesn't exist, but I have faith and believe that he does.

Yes that's right, though the probability is extremely high the taquito existed. So, more specifically, at the subatomic level, you can't precisely predict say the momentum or position of a particle. Once you have all the subatomic particles that exist say in a baseball, the probability that baseball will behave in a non-deterministic way is so small it may be 1 in a zillion or so. So, it's no wonder we don't observe quantum effects on such macroscopic levels.

It's also no wonder you are certain of eating a taco, because the probability that taco would have say flown off into space spontaneously is astronomically low. In your world and in my world of actual personal experiences, the world is essentially deterministic.

But, that's not accurate. So, when talking about how nature actually is, you can't be stuck in the 1920's. It's inherently probabilistic.




So basically, science hasn't proven the universe is infinite or finite. Correct?

Correct, though the more predominant theories assume finiteness. Keep in mind though this aspect of cosmology isn't that advanced, so take statements on such things as educated guesses, not really something anyone should bet something on.




Ah yes, there it is. I remember as a kid (always watching science shows) asking my mom "if God created the universe, where did God come from?". Mom's answer was always "he's always been". I tried forever to wrap my little brain around that one. That's what drives science crazy about deity based religion. They simply cannot stand that there is a supreme being that has always been, always was, and always will be. God has no beginning, middle, or end. God cannot be explained or quantified, but that is what science is trying to do, explain everything. Except you can't explain God. I wish all of those "Unified Field Theorist" good luck...

The bigger question is why you even need to invent an idea of God. I mean if you are willing to assume it's possible something created itself, why can't that something be Nature?

That's far more realistic and doesn't add an extra uncertainty. Really, this has little to do with the ability to explain. It has more to do with why you choose one out of an infinite number of different assumptions that are EQUALLY probable of being correct and equally capable of explaining something.

Seriously, the best thing is to just leave it at "we don't know yet".

ckb2001
07-14-2007, 02:45 PM
It seems to me that science requires a set of assumptions just as religion does, namely that the rules of science apply and that these rules are the definitive answer for our questions. Many religions say the same thing. Arguing the merits of one over the other is not likely to end in agreement as personal decisions based on personal reality have been made already. When you invest your energy and time into living a certain way, based on the rules that you believe are true, it's not common to change those beliefs. Every individual chooses the rules they live by.

Of course science requires assumptions. Everything science does is really conditional in nature. The difference is we are willing to test those assumptions and change them as necessary if the assumptions turn out to be inaccurate. Religion starts off with "X is true and can't be questioned". You NEVER find that in science.

LouPhinFan
07-15-2007, 12:09 AM
Ok, ok, ckb2001 my friend...we'll just agree to disagree.

Your knowledge is impressive and covers several different fields. In which branch of science do you work?

ckb2001
07-15-2007, 12:48 AM
Ok, ok, ckb2001 my friend...we'll just agree to disagree.

Your knowledge is impressive and covers several different fields. In which branch of science do you work?

I started off in math, got a B.A in that, but found I was more interested in trying to create mathematical models of neural systems, so I switched to sensory neuroscience. Still in grad school in that field.